Re: remark on defining size of basic types

On 04.04.2024 13:32, fir wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:46:46 +0200, fir wrote:
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 01:34:48 +0200, fir wrote:
>

here is a problem in using 64 big ints on windows ...

>
      #include <stdint.h>
>
      int64_t signed_64bit_int;
      uint64_t unsigned_64bit_int;
>

maybe but thats not the point

>
If you want specific-sized types, that’s the standard C mechanism for
providing them.
>

ok, but my point is maybe the convention to use that standard ones char
short int long and allowing them to be set (overwiitting defaults) from
the command line would/wouldnt be just better
 
someone can think here what they want, but i just wanted to pint that
idea (for eventuall discussion if someone wants)

*If* the size matters you should/could use the sized data types that
you see above. If size doesn't matter, why redefine the basic types?

Since I remember C had always just defined a '<=' (or '>=') relation
between the unsized basic integral data types.

You may want to explain what (positive) effect you expect from such
a language change or feature. (And consider what drawbacks and issues
would be accompanied with it.)

Sometimes it's useful to have an unbounded or parameterized integral
data type available - this is what I initially thought your thread
might be about - and some language (not C) do support that.

Janis