I would be great with i8 and byte. I would rather we not add 'short' or 'int' aliases. I am strongly opposed to adding a 'long' alias.
'long' on most 32-bit platforms is 32-bit. 'long' on Max and Linux 64-bit is 64-bits, but 'long' on Win64 is 32-bits. I would rather not have a type system where thrift's long doesn't match the compiler's long. I've had to do something like 'typedef LONG int;' for other projects, and I'd rather not do it here. The same kind of argument can hold for 'short' and 'int', but the platforms where those are 'unusual' sizes tend to be more unusual themselves. Allegedly, old Cray machines made all the primitives 64-bit, even char. Randy Abernethy <r...@apache.org> wrote on 12/01/2014 08:10:18 AM: > From: Randy Abernethy <r...@apache.org> > To: "dev@thrift.apache.org" <dev@thrift.apache.org>, > Date: 12/01/2014 08:10 AM > Subject: Re: Re: i32 vs int > > Touche. I can live with byte as a special case :-). > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Konrad Grochowski > <hc...@minions.org.pl> wrote: > > There's no i8 but byte, which creates inconsistency ;) > > > > -------- Oryginalna wiadomość -------- > > Od: Randy Abernethy <r...@apache.org> > > Data:01.12.2014 14:21 (GMT+01:00) > > Do: dev@thrift.apache.org > > Temat: Re: i32 vs int > > > > One of the things I love about Thrift is its simple IDL. No aliases > > just simple self describing types (i8, i16, etc). We presently have > > one keyword for each feature of the IDL. I think the Pandora's box > > analogy is a good one. It is hard work keeping things simple. > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Stig Bakken <s...@zedge.net> wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, what kinds of errors did you see from this? > >> > >> - Stig > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Jens Geyer <jensge...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> Hi *, > >>> > >>> I have found people multiple times doing things like this, > ending up with strange errors. > >>> > >>> typedef i32 int > >>> > >>> What about making it legal and allowing int as an built-in alias for i32? > >>> Or should we add some kind of warning instead? > >>> > >>> Or would either one of these just open pandora’s box? > >>> > >>> Have fun, > >>> JensG
