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
Well, Peter and I have thought about this, but came to the conclusion that the effort (much more renaming, and more types in total, since we'd, e.g., have `CLongLong' and (Pascal extension) `LongInt' with the same meaning) is not justified by the cleaner nomenclature. Especially since in the future we plan to have an automatic translator to care about the C names.
As for `CInt' vs. `CInteger', I don't mind very much, but since we have `CString' and not `CCharStar' ;-), I thought `CInteger' to me reasonable ...
Frank