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
>
>