Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:00:21 +0100:
> Do we need subrange types?
Positively, but they are required to have (compile time, at least) range
checking.
--
--
(Weitergabe von Adressdaten, Telefonnummern u.รค. ohne Zustimmung
nicht gestattet, ebenso Zusendung von Werbung od
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:46:05 +0100:
> Register = bitpacked RECORD
>Field_1: $..$007f;
>Field_2: $..$0003;
>Field_3: $..$001f;
>Field_4: $..$0001;
>Field_5: $..$0001;
>
On Saturday 09 November 2013 19:56:55 Sieghard wrote:
> Disregarding that it's identical to my example, I don't think it looks any
> _better_, it in fact adds a lot of fuzz (the "$" signs and the many zeros)
> that effectively hide the real information from immediate recognition.
> I still maintai
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:23:43 +0100:
> Currently I prefer cardinal -> cardXX and integer -> intXX because of the
> Pascal types. It would be even better if the two had same count of
> characters. carXX? :-
Adding confusion to obscurity? Why insist on foreshortening
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 8 Nov 2013 06:46:55 +0100:
> > You might opt to spell it out as "integer", I think.
> >
> That is not better IMHO. uint, sint -> uinteger, sinteger.
> What about unum, snum?
I rather thought about using "integer" as a name for the "signed int" C-ish
type _only_
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 07:41:13 +0100:
> Why? We don't talk about Pascal. I often see errors in programs because
> of wrong 0/1 array starting index. Oberon doesn't have it either:
That's due to the early C exposures people suffer these times.
You require theater seat numb
Hi,
Sieghard suggests to use Algol 68 syntax instead to try to make the best of 30
years of programming experience.
Opinions?
Martin
--
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application performance
On Saturday 09 November 2013 20:37:11 Sieghard wrote:
>
> Which means, there's not much to gain with foreshortened identifiers, when
> the editors make typing easy anyway.
> After all, a programmer should not type most of the time, but _think_ about
> the structures his typing is to describe. Shoul
On Saturday 09 November 2013 20:57:24 Sieghard wrote:
>
> There's no performance gain, there's just no performance _difference_
> between 0-based and arbitrary-based arrays - and there's no need of a "base
> register" of any kind. Just have the compiler shift the (imaginary) base
> address of the a
9 matches
Mail list logo
