> Yes, the u{...}int names are important. Those "different names" are
> normally for other (though obviously related) purposes (conceptually
> int_exact_*), and the int_least_* and int_fast_* names, usually are built
the int_least_* names appear to me to be completely wasted, given
this is how the normal types are defined and that you couldn't depend
on the extra bits. also, how do you debug code written like this?
one complete test for each possible definition of int_least_*?
of course, that leads to the question, is that set known?
one also wonders about int_fast_* as well. fast /for what/ exactly?
it seems that all this is in respose to the fact that the c-std version
of u32int is not required. (the names are somewhat offensive to
good taste, so i refer to them as one does carlin's list, by suggestion.)
rather than fix that issue, layering on another set of types was the
solution. really?
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n868.htm :
“ It can also be argued that programmers that use the 'intN_t' more than
likely really meant to use the 'int_leastN_t' types. Such programmers
probably want a type with a guaranteed number of bits rather than an
exact number of bits.
It can be argued further that use of the 'intN_t' names is not portable
because they may not exist in all implementations. (An implementation
is not required to provide these types.)
unfortunately, there are still programmers who use the definition
more complicated ≡ more better. evidently believing in the
transitive nature of "more" over false premises.
- erik
