[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: kconfig_compiler4
From:       Till Adam <adam () kde ! org>
Date:       2006-01-10 20:34:57
Message-ID: 200601102135.07390.adam () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Thursday 29 December 2005 07:56, Thomas Braxton wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 00:13, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Thomas Braxton wrote:
> > >Int64 was already there I just changed Int -> Int32 to be more explicit
> > > about it's size, and got rid of Long which was ambiguous. Anyways how
> > > would you be able to tell if a single byte was an int8 or a char?
> >
> > It's up to the implementation to decide that. My point is: using (or not
> > using) sizes to denote the various int types is an arbitrary decision,
> > just as using one single int type.
>
> so what do you think we should do about it? i haven't recieved any feedback
> on my post about kconfig_compiler/Int/Int32.
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=113562560619127&w=2

I don't think it makes much sense to let users of kconfigXT speculate as to 
the number of bits used for storing their integer config value. If they worry 
it might not be enough, give them a "very large" type, in addition to "UInt". 
I would propose to do as the QVariants do, and use UInt and ULongLong, 
instead of the current Int32 and Int64.

Till

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]