On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:20:35PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote: > Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 20:55:57 +0900 2009: > > I mean just for CARDxx and INTxx, i.e. they really only have the number > > of bits implied by the type. XID/Atom/etc, where they're just used as > > unsigned long, will have to stay that way. Shrug. > > Yeah, the CARD/INT stuff should be replaced globally, starting with > header file hacks and moving into the rest of the code. However, the > suggested patch also replaced the XID types everywhere.
Ah. > > In what sense is CARD32/INT32 more self-documenting than > > uint32_t/int32_t? > > I only meant to reference Window/Pixmap/etc where the typenames > all point at XID but provide additional information about the API. Oh sure, I don't think it makes any sense to change them. At the very most, just typedef them to (u)intNN_t; making our API more opaque and mystic than it already is, seems like somewhat of a loss. Cheers, Daniel
pgpNOqoYLWORo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
