digitalmars.D - Re: Dynamic arrays, basic type names, auto
- Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> Jul 11 2008
Markus Koskimies Wrote:- i8, i16, i32, i64, ..., u8, u16, u32, ... or intXX / uintXX variants, since if you need to know the width of the number, you think it in bits. No use to use bytes, it's just confusing.
I too would prefer to have integer sizes in terms of bits rather than bytes as well. As far as what my ideal integer declaration syntax is, I'm still not sure. I certainly hate tying the hands of the optimizer to use a specific size integer just because it's part of the language spec. It may be good to standardize sizes for serialization, even if things are stored in a native size. I also wonder about how overflow/underflow should be handled when -release is not used. Of course, I shouldn't even be thinking about that when there's no check against dereferences nulls
Jul 11 2008