On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 05:05:11PM -0600, Mike Barton wrote:
> > I disagree. Just because it is easier to convert the code, and happens
> > to work on one particular compiler/architecture doesn't make it a good
> > idea. There's no reason to explicitly hinder code portability like this.
> > If you want the range of a long int, use a long int. Or use an
> > architecture independent type with the required range.
>
> I guess if you were porting ROM to DOS or some sort of hand-held device,
> there
> might be a point to worrying about it.
Indeed, and since you're far more likely to be porting to a platform
where 'long int' is 64 bits, I agree that it's of dubious value to use a
long int where a regular int is plenty big on modern hardware.
--
| All our lives we love illusion,
brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Neatly caught between confusion
| And the need to know we are alive.
| -- the residents
