> Well, it wasn't a hard requirement, it is just that the library has > to use a more complicated way to get the precision (use (unsigned > TYPE)(-1) to get the unsigned max and compute the precision from > that, probably).
We could define macros for the precision too, and we already know max and min values as macros, it's "just a matter of" exporting that info to the C++ headers somehow. > > Would it be acceptable for the compiler to always define a set of > > macros for each of the intN types? > > What set of macros do you have in mind? In general, I meant. They'd be predefined for pretty much every compile, not just the C++ headers.
