From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id CAA22366; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:07:44 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA21826 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:07:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from moutng1.schlund.de (moutng1.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1717cT21228 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:07:43 +0100 (MET) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng1.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 16Yd2I-0003rP-00; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 02:07:38 +0100 Received: from [80.129.100.1] (helo=ice.gerd-stolpmann.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 16Yd2H-0001xe-00; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 02:07:37 +0100 Received: from ice (gerd@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ice.gerd-stolpmann.de (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g1717Z1q000838; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:07:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 02:07:35 +0100 From: Gerd Stolpmann To: fvdp@decis.be Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Suggestion for Int32.rotate Message-ID: <20020207020735.A577@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de> References: <20020205000643.A31440@gogol.zorgol> <20020206190151.A9371@pauillac.inria.fr> <20020206210814.A15985@verdot.inria.fr> <3C61958D.C03D2463@decis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3C61958D.C03D2463@decis.be>; from fvdp@decis.be on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 21:43:57 +0100 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.2.1 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 2002.02.06 21:43 Frederic van der Plancke wrote: > Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:01:51PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > > > > A C-style syntax would be 12345L for int32 and 123456789LL for > > > int64; what about nativeint? 12345N ? Anything nicer? > > > > A small problem of 12345L is that "L" for "long" is not justified on > 64-bit platforms, and more importantly it is not at all obvious what > length it actually represents. > > What about 12345i32, 123456789i64, like some C(++) compilers do; that would > preserve extensibility (in case one wants 123456789i128 in the future), > and makes the value types clearer and more consistent, > even though it makes the actual values somewhat less readable, specially > if one uses an uppercase I. ('N' or (why not) 'L' could be used instead.) > For native ints we could then chose either 12345i or 12345n. And keep > the other one for arbitrary-sized integers. Why not allow "_" in integer literals, so one can write 12345_i32, 123456789_i64, 123_456_789_i64, 123456789_nat, 123456789_big (for bigints). I think this kind of suffix is easier to remember than a single letter. Gerd -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerd Stolpmann Telefon: +49 6151 997705 (privat) Viktoriastr. 45 64293 Darmstadt EMail: gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de Germany ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr