Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Simple to implement and to use christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2022-12-11) |
| From: | "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Fri, 9 Dec 2022 07:40:15 -0800 (PST) |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 22-12-001 22-12-003 22-12-004 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="76370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | types, history |
| Posted-Date: | 10 Dec 2022 16:29:52 EST |
| In-Reply-To: | 22-12-004 |
On Saturday, 3 December 2022 at 22:52:17 UTC, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
> Instead weird constructs like
> "long long" for int64_t have been introduced, while "int int" stays
> equivalent to "int".
(Sorry, not following this thread till I noticed "long long" :-) )
Another feature C's pinched off Algol 68?
(When I designed and partly-implemented a language in 2006, I called my types
"s8", "u8", "s16", and "u16". (That's as far as I got.) From nearly 40 years
of C programming, I've concluded that having "int" be the "natural" size of
integer is more of a liability than an asset.)
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.