Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:06:58 01/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2003 at 12:37:20, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On January 10, 2003 at 11:10:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 10, 2003 at 05:12:04, David Rasmussen wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 2003 at 17:36:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>I think the entire concept of "short", "int" and "long" are badly flawed. It >>>>would >>>>have been so much more logical and clean to simply go with int16, int32 and >>>>int64. >>>> >>>>I don't personally like "long long" as it is a syntactical oddity in light of >>>>char, short, int >>>>and float/double. >>> >>>There is a reasonable explanation for this at least. The idea is that "int" >>>should be whatever is the most natural entity of integer calculalation on a >>>machine. In many cases, you don't care how many bits a type can store. The lower >>>limits given by the standards is enough. You just want to know that by writing >>>"int" you get something that on every platform is supposed to be simple, fast, >>>signed (no weird problems with subtraction etc.), >> >>But _not_ for "real codes". Do I _really_ want to use int, when it _might_ be a >>16 bit value that won't hold the counter I need? >> >>No. > >You can use long, as you say below, if you really need bigger values than the >ones provided by 16 bits. I do not think this is a big deal. > >Miguel That's the point. On a Cray, I want to use "int" and get 32 bits, vs using long and getting 64. I _know_ the precision I need, I'd prefer to be able to specify it _precisely_ rather than letting the compiler assume something.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.