On 12/01/08 17:43, Darren Reed wrote: > I'm somewhat uncomfortable with "long long" always implying 64bits, > or with long implying only 32 bits... > > I'd prefer to see the API explicitly make a point of being for > 64bit values, either with "uint64_t *" as the final arg or it being > called "ddi_strtou64"... but maybe the horse has already bolted > on this one, given ddi_strtoul, and thus the best we can hope for > is to be consistent with past "mistakes"? > > Darren >
I think it makes sense to stick with the strtol/ll convention because it associates with the primitive ISO C types (as Garrett noted). Maybe providing a separate set of interfaces (ddi_strtos32(), ddi_strtou64(), etc.) makes sense, but I think James is right in that it should be a separate project. Jordan
