3 ms·
> It is reasonable to assume "built-in integer" means "int". This strikes me as a little nuts for C but it definitely explains this thread. I just assumed peop
by SomeOldThrow 7y ago
> It is reasonable to assume "built-in integer" means "int".
This strikes me as a little nuts for C but it definitely explains this thread. I just assumed people had already switched over to e.g. sint32/size_t to avoid this problem a long time ago. I couldn’t tell if this was a legitimate complaint or someone’s language lawyering tendencies gone too far.
- asveikau 7y agoFirst of all, we're not talking C. This is a C++ template parameter. The feature doesn't exist in C. Second, it is not "nuts" to use int, I would argue it's quite a bit more crazy to use rarely-supported 128-bit quantities when you don't need them. Your suggestion of "sint32" (this is not a standardized typedef, you mean int32_t perhaps) would be the same as int on most compilers today, and size_t is likewise very often 32 bits. Your suggestion is basically a no-op in a lot of places. Domain-specific areas like file formats or network protocols are a different story, as those have to be explicit about specifying sizes. Third: > someone’s language lawyering tendencies I suggest you avoid passive-aggressive communication style and just say "you" instead of "someone". If you're going to criticize or give feedback, be direct. Don't vaguely tell me that "somebody" "might" have a problem. Best regards to you, friend.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoHey I was just trying to figure out if you were bringing up anything of value :)