On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:26:38AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> > 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.
>
> unit32_t etc is not required for an ISO compliant compiler ;(
I thought they were in C99?
> > I abhor interfaces that use GL_int, gints, judy_int32s or whatnot.
>
> I agree, but that is irrelevant.
>
> Just think about it. We cannot have two libraries both making
> these corrections in their own headers, because those libraries
> will then conflict.
>
> Therefore, if you're going to fix deficient headers you must
> fix them where all libraries can access a common fix.
Ah, yes, I was under the impression this was a private header for use
internally by the library. my mistake.
Writing such a common library would be a laudable goal for a motivated
individual. It always bugs me when people respond to the presence of
several incompatible interfaces with a new incomptible interface of
their own making.
A nice library bringing systems as close as possible to C99 POSIX
without jumping through too many hoops, as in just adding
typedefs/function shims as needed would be a useful thing to exist.
Of course, an alternate would be to just declare judy to rely on C99
features. But I can see why not everyone would be happy with that.
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
