Re: [9fans] go forth and ulong no more!

[Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1855 bytes --]

I agree with brucee here about the Go type names: I'd rather see uint64,
int64, uint32, int32, etc.

usize doesn't bother me much.  New C programmers are often confused by
size_t being unsigned (even experienced ones at times); this makes it clear.


On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com> wrote:

> i think that go's scalar types would work better. also usize is  a bit
> dicky.
>
> brucee
> On Nov 22, 2012 12:23 PM, "erik quanstrom" <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed Nov 21 19:19:21 EST 2012, benavento@gmail.com wrote:
>> > hola,
>> >
>> > usize, really?
>> >
>> > any reason not use this opportunity to join the world and use
>> inttypes.h or stdint.h format?
>>
>> have you read the opengroup pubs?
>>
>>
>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/stdint.h.html
>>
>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604599/basedefs/inttypes.h.html
>>
>> i don't see any advantage to using whatever types these guys are using.
>> when porting things from plan 9, it's good to have different type names.
>> the assumptions of various systems differ.  when porting things to plan 9,
>> you're likely going to be using ape anyway.
>>
>> these headers are missing a type representing physical memory, and Rune.
>> no, i'm never going to consider using wchar_t instead.
>>
>> yet they have types we do not want such as int_{least,fast} and int_max_t.
>> they seem to be a trap set by greybeards for unsuspecting young
>> programmers.
>> one could hold this kind of thing up as a reason that c is an old and
>> broken language.
>>
>> and then there's the printf macros.  oh, joy.
>>
>> i'm sure that others could back this up with more inteligent reasoning.
>>  i'm just
>> prone to rant (had you noticed) when i see some of this stuff.
>>
>> - erik
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2808 bytes --]