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

Reply via email to