On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 02:25:03PM +0000, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail
Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
> In short, adding a new pike type for "unsigned INT_TYPE" would create
> lots of work for rather small benefits.
you mean on the C level? since on the pike level that type already exists.
anyways, that makes sense and is good enough for me.
> If you have a use-case where you would benefit from unsigned
> INT_TYPEs, I can show you how to rewrite it to benefit from signed
> INT_TYPEs instead.
if i can rewrite it why can't i let pike do it for me?
just to keep it in line with: "All so that you morons can write crappy
code and still have it running fast as a breeze.... "
how would you rewrite an array of ipaddresses for example?
something like this?
class IPAddressList
{
array(int(-2147483648..2147483648)) ipaddresslist = ({});
int `[](int index)
{
return ipaddresses[index]+2147483648;
}
}
greetings, martin.
