On 2/02/2013 8:27 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 02/01/2013 12:06 PM, Kinkie wrote:
BTW: c++11 defines intXX_t as part of the core language; I believe
that to be an indication that the language will evolve in that
direction.
I sure hope C++ does not evolve in the direction of uint64_t! :-)
Just because something very useful is added, does not mean it should be
used by default instead of something old (but also very useful).
Agreed.
The only reason I'm aware of having the intXX_t in the guidelines at all
is that there is a mess of alternative intXX labeling styles out there
and we needed to pick one for consistent size indication - and followed
the C++XX styling at the time. It is to be used when size matters, BUT,
whenever the size does not matter we can leave it to the older more
generic naming. IMO we will one day want to be converting a lot of those
to "auto" instead of a specific sized int anyway.
Yes these do need doing in a lot of places to ensure the 64-bit systems
work properly. However it is obviously far from a quick process. Many of
the areas needing 64-bit changes will also need som eextensive testing
done at the same time.
Kinkie, for the quick renaming projects I think the object name and
static/non-static member capitalization styles would be a good next
target. Followed by private member _ naming.
Amos
