>> I agree that bigger is better and %jd is much better then "%" >> PRI/SCN. But don't you think that to know the exact width is even >> better? > You can always use sizeof if the need to know the size arises.
sizeof returns the number of bytes used to store an object. This is only loosely related to the number of data bits in the object; the latter is no more than sizeof the object times CHAR_BIT, but it may be lower. Also, using an exact-width type assumes that the hardware/compiler in question _has_ such a type. It's possible that lua, NetBSD, or the combination of the two is willing to write off portability to machines where one or both of those potential portability issues becomes actual. But that seems to be asking for trouble to me; history is full of "but nobody will ever want to port this to one of _those_" that come back to bite people. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B