From: Michael Walter (cm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-26 14:32:22
DG> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> We should discuss whether to use short, int, long ... as the primitive
>> types or int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, int64_t. The latter makes it easier
>> to write portable archives, the former seems more natural. I can
>> accept both choices but we should not mix the two as is done now.
DG> For who would it be less natural to use int32_t, etc instead of int,
DG> etc? Not the end user of the archive, right? And I think the writer of
DG> the archive would be more concerned with portability. And even he/she is
DG> not, the burden is not that great, is it?
DG> AFAICT the advantages of int32_t etc outweigh the disadvantages. But
DG> perhaps I'm missing something?
DG> Dirk Gerrits
If you aim for portability, you can simply use int8_t, int16_t, etc.
in your implementation - no need to use it in the archive interfaces
as far as I get it. Sorry if I miss the point :)
-- Best regards, Michael mailto:cm_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk