Tower of Babel!
It later grows higher to
CUnsignedLongLongLong,
CUnsignedLongLongLongLong,...
Ugh!
The "C-like" names are makeshift and awful, with
no room for expansion.
Whatever the names are forced to be by historical
considerations, why not the simple alternative
nomenclature:
Signed:
Unsigned:
Int8
UnsInt8
Int16 UnsInt16
Int32
UnsInt32
Int64
UnsInt64
Int128
UnsInt128
Int256
UbsInt256
......
.........
With these names you know exactly where you're at,
and when
512 bit computing... becomes available, extending
the list will be a piece of cake.
Harley Flanders
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Making Integer bigger ?
Adriaan van Os wrote:
>
I agree on the size issue, but not on the proposed nomenclature. Since
>
the purpose of the C-type names is C-header conversion, C-like names
>
will be more practical.
>
> CChar
> CSignedChar
>
CUnsignedChar
> CShort
> CSignedShort
> CUnsignedShort
>
CInt
> CSignedInt
> CUnsignedInt
> CLong
>
CSignedLong
> CUnsignedLong
> CLongLong
>
CSignedLongLong
> CUnsignedLongLong
===========================================
Prof. Harley
Flanders
3533 Windemere Court
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2867
Home: 734 668
1546
harley@umich.edu