On Feb 2, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Bengt Richter wrote: > So long as we have a distinction between int and long, IWT int will > be fixed width > for any given implementation, and for interfacing with foreign > functions it will > continue to be useful at times to limit the type of arguments being > passed. We _don't_ have a distinction in any meaningful way, anymore. ints and longs are almost always treated exactly the same, other than the "L" suffix. I expect that suffix will soon go away as well. If there is code that _doesn't_ treat them the same, there is the bug. We don't need strange new syntax to work around buggy code. Note that 10**14/10**13 is also a long, yet any interface that did not accept that as an argument but did accept "10" is simply buggy. Same goes for code that says it takes a 32-bit bitfield argument but won't accept 0x80000000. James
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