zach> > Sorry Rick, but I think that you and Duane have lost this argument. > You have failed to defend your position with facts. >
It's hard to 'defined my position' - when I asked this last night 9pm - and left early this AM to spend a good part of memorial day holiday on a sail boat (what a Beautiful day where I am) meanwhile, the discussion went on. I was asking more for an opinion, and the *REASON* I wanted to ask this was the recent rash of "printf()" formatter warning fixes, etc - and how this mess plays out over different host platform, arches, etc. ie: "u32" can be created a "zillion ways" on some platforms, however - to stop 'printf' warnings one should perform "X" - what ever that is - and that step is a noble goal in it self. I thought - perhaps wrongly - that somebody could point me at something that says the "portable cross platform c99 way of printing a "uint<whatever>_t" would be specifier "X" or something like that. If that did exist, then yes there is a technical reason that method X is better then Y, and that technical reason wins. David's statement: "they look and smell long, like an elephant" - while funny, I agree with him 100%, that view has no technical component. And to day - zach - you are correct when you say: >> In this case, the shorthand types are the de facto standard, based on >> the majority of lines of code that use them. They have already won. That is however, the "we always do it that way" answer. Understand, I am asking the "pot roast question" there's another version using "a baked ham" http://www.snopes.com/weddings/newlywed/secret.asp http://mitmoi.blogspot.com/2006/11/pot-roast-story.html _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
