On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:30:19AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> This is a VERY bad idea and breaks ISO rules.
> These symbols are reserved, and may not be defined by users.
>
> The correct way to handle this is to define your own
> symbols such as judy_int16_t etc. Otherwise you may conflict
> with a compiler upgrade or some other user that decided to
> break the rules.
Please no,
This is a huge pet peeve of mine, the correct thing to do is to use
the standard 'uint32_t' and whatnot internally everywhere, assuming an
ISO compliant compiler.
For the non-iso ones an autoconf macro can fill in the needed typedefs.
I abhor interfaces that use GL_int, gints, judy_int32s or whatnot.
eventually, the world will be C99, we should write code assuming that
is the case and fill in the gaps via autoconf and #ifdefs when needed.
one day, those ifdefs will disapear, but if we invent some arbitrary
compatability layer, it is something we will be stuck with.
Of course, the test to see whether you should define uint32_t and
friends yourself should be quite robust, there are quite a few autoconf
macros floating around which have the desired qualities.
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Judy-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
