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

List:       webkit-dev
Subject:    Re: [webkit-dev] unsigned vs unsigned int
From:       Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde () carewolf ! com>
Date:       2012-09-17 8:22:11
Message-ID: 201209171022.11327.kde () carewolf ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 16 September 2012, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:30 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde@carewolf.com> wro=
te:
> > On Thursday 13 September 2012, Dan Bernstein wrote:
> >> On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen =

<kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I was telling people to use "unsigned" instead of "unsigned int", as I
> >>> have been told that was the preferred style before, but apparently
> >>> that is not in the style guide.
> >>> =

> >>> The question is, should it be?
> >> =

> >> Yes.
> > =

> > Why? Wouldn't it be better to move away from deprecated C syntax?
> =

> I think we should use the shortest name for each type.
> =

> That is why I like =93unsigned=94 better than =93unsigned int=94.
> =

Does this mean you also prefer 'const' over 'const int'? ;-)

Anyway, I have no strong opinion on the subject, like most programmers I ju=
st =

prefer what I am just to, and for some reason I am more used to 'unsigned i=
nt' =

than 'unsigned'. But I can easily live with it. This was only meant as a =

weekend comment.

Best regards.
`Allan
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]