Re: [Geany-Devel] Geany using standard types
On 13-08-19 10:33 AM, Dimitar Zhekov wrote: On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 03:56:01 -0700 Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: My concern here with stdint.h was that if CHAR_BIT 8 then C99 forbids an implementation from defining int8_t and if int8_t isn't defined then uint8_t can't be defined. And if this is true [citation needed], and you couldn't rely on (u)int8_t, then might as well just stick to portable GLib typedefs. In POSIX and Windows, CHAR_BIT is always 8, and we don't really support anything else. CHAR_BIT may be 8 if the system can not address 8-bit values, but in that case, no 8-bit integer type will exist, and GLib will be unable to define a gint8 either. Which is not a problem, since GLib (as of 2.37) supports only G_OS_BEOS, G_OS_UNIX and G_OS_WIN32... Thanks for the info, good to know! I'm still +1 for using the standard types over the weird G* types, but I'll stop annoying everyone about it if others like them (for reasons I didn't understand). Maybe I'll ask again about it maybe once we're ready to switch to C11 in a decade or so :) Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Geany-Devel] Geany using standard types
On 18 August 2013 19:32, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: Hi, It was pointed out to me on IRC that I went into too much details/patches and muddied the original question, so I propose it again more simply: Do you agree it would be better for Geany to use standard C types as opposed to GLib types which are typedef'd to the exact same thing? (ex. gint-int, glong-long, gchar-char etc.) Personally I can't find any great positives or negatives, but then I've trained my eyes to read gint as int, others may find standard code more attractive (or vice versa). What I would be worried about is changing the existing code to use the standard types. Matthew has kindly illustrated the size of such a change, and while I'm sure 99.99% of the changes are fine, I would worry about the few places it might not be semantically equivalent, no matter how good the regexes that made the change are. The size of the change means we are never going to manually inspect it, and the places it will go wrong are not obvious, so we can't easily point to examples. So whilst I wouldn't advocate changing the existing code (at least en bloc) I don't see any reason for disallowing standard types in new code and changes to existing code as it is touched. Cheers Lex Sorry for any noise, Matthew Brush ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
