Re: [AD] WIP 4.1.15 and CVS freeze

[Chris <kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Wang wrote:
> Does this mean more argument/return types will become unsigned in 
> future?  I reckon unsigned-ness can be a bitch to work with.

I personally think it should work like this: all argument/return types 
are signed by default. However, if you need the extra bit for larger 
positive numbers, or in cases where having negative numbers would break 
something (like underflowing an overflowed number to achieve a proper 
result), then it should be unsigned. That and pointer casts (which falls 
into #2 if you're going to be doing math on them, really).

> The 
> "unsigned" keyword is just too long, and yet it feels gratuitous to 
> typedef unsigned int uint.

For Unix this would be easy.. just do a configure check for C99 typedefs 
and, if not present, make some wrapper defines to map them to known 
proper-size types. Though I would have no idea how to solve this on 
Windows, DOS, or wherever else you can't run a configure check.. perhaps 
just a static define list for those?

- Kitty Cat