On 24.06.2023 09:11, Julien Grall wrote: > On 23/06/2023 18:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >> I'm not happy to, with the continued use of the >> two U suffixes. It may seem minor, but to me it feels like setting a >> bad precedent. > > I wasn't able to find the reasoning behind your objections in the > archive. I would like to understand your concern before providing any > ack. Would you be able to give a pointer?
I appreciate the Misra-invoked desire to add U suffixes where otherwise (visual) ambiguities may exist. But on numbers like 0 or 1, and when use of e.g. resulting #define-s doesn't require the constants to be of unsigned type, I view such suffixes purely as clutter. In the specific case I might go as far as questioning why, when U is added, L isn't added as well, to "support" the size_t result aspect also from the "width of type" perspective. Jan
