On Wednesday, August 14, 2002, at 04:39 , Guido van Rossum wrote: > How about the following counterproposal. This also changes some of > the other format codes to be a little more regular. > > Code C type Range check > > b unsigned char 0..UCHAR_MAX > B unsigned char none ** > h unsigned short 0..USHRT_MAX > H unsigned short none ** > i int INT_MIN..INT_MAX > I * unsigned int 0..UINT_MAX > l long LONG_MIN..LONG_MAX > k * unsigned long none > L long long LLONG_MIN..LLONG_MAX > K * unsigned long long none > > Notes: > > * New format codes. > > ** Changed from previous "range-and-a-half" to "none"; the > range-and-a-half checking wasn't particularly useful. Fine with me. My only reason for suggesting the uint32_t and friends was because I was under the impression that you were unhappy with "unsigned long" having a different size on different platforms. I'm perfectly happy with char/short/long/long long. -- - Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com> http://www.cwi.nl/~jack - - If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman -
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4