DG> Robert Ramey wrote: >> We should discuss whether to use short, int, long ... as the primitive >> types or int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, int64_t. The latter makes it easier >> to write portable archives, the former seems more natural. I can >> accept both choices but we should not mix the two as is done now.
DG> For who would it be less natural to use int32_t, etc instead of int, DG> etc? Not the end user of the archive, right? And I think the writer of DG> the archive would be more concerned with portability. And even he/she is DG> not, the burden is not that great, is it? DG> AFAICT the advantages of int32_t etc outweigh the disadvantages. But DG> perhaps I'm missing something? DG> Regards, DG> Dirk Gerrits If you aim for portability, you can simply use int8_t, int16_t, etc. in your implementation - no need to use it in the archive interfaces as far as I get it. Sorry if I miss the point :) -- Best regards, Michael mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
