From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9ab217670510011128j2ae263a2k@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat,  1 Oct 2005 11:28:17 -0700
From: "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>
To: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 64-Bit programming model.
In-Reply-To: <ee9e417a0510010650y4dd0483asecce3b3820525407@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <32a656c20509300431j6ab02b7cm7512019149d45a59@mail.gmail.com>
	<f344c691fd8960b43b2c77f308ed2ea3@terzarima.net>
	<32a656c20509301427v79705106ta3c169660f5d59b6@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.sxxvhc0oqv20vd@jmk.lra.lucent.com> <433DFDEC.9040301@lanl.gov>
	<9ab217670509302019h139a3d72j@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee9e417a0510010650y4dd0483asecce3b3820525407@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9354a9cc-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

2005/10/1, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>:
> > Though I don't necessarily agree with Jim if I understand him
> > correctly. I don't think that providing interfaces to make code
> > compilation on systems of different bit sizes promotes `a sloppy
> > monoculture.'
>
> But the quote Jim found wasn't arguing for interfaces.
> It was arguing for universal agreement on type sizes for
> 64-bit systems.
>
> Russ

In which case this is a misunderstanding on my part :)

-D