Boost logo

Boost :

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> Regards,
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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at