Hi,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:29:24PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Emile van Bergen <emile-deb@evbergen.xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> > I agree, but I'm willing to bet that assuming sizeof(char) is 1 is more
^
octet
> > portable today than assuming stdint.h is available.
> >
> > But the point is: if a particular size or signedness is required for a
> > variable, then its type name should make that clear.
> >
> > A gchar is about as undescriptive as you can get; uint8 would have been
> > so much better. Glib could perfectly have used autoconf to sort out how
> > to define or typedef a [u]int{8,16,32,ptr,64} using the standard C types
> > on a certain platform if it really needed them.
> >
> They do: take a look at /usr/lib/glib-2.0/include/glibconfig.h
>
> There you have gint8, guint8, gint16, ...
>
> Please stop ranting about things you seem not to be informed of.
Point taken, but given the above, defining a gchar seems even more
unnecessary.
cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgpP_Kxa_u_cS.pgp
Description: PGP signature