Re: Is __int64 dead?
- From: "David Webber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:43:40 +0100
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0p91d3tv5nn4ms14e17uoppemogs99d7f1@xxxxxxxxxx
I tend to use the types LONGLONG and ULONGLONG and not worry about the underlying type
they are written in terms of.
Am I the only one who worries about the aesthetics of these names?
bool, char, int, __int64, are elegant names.
long, short aren't too bad either.
BYTE, WORD, UINT, and even DWORD are not too bad.
But others are just plain ugly including
LONGLONG, wchar_t, size_t, INT_PTR, and a whole host of those rising to prominence relatively recently. Just a thought - I now i'm not going to win any battles to eliminate them. <g> (I do tend to use WCHAR instead of wchar_t though.)
Dave
--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is __int64 dead?
- From: David Ching
- Re: Is __int64 dead?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Re: Is __int64 dead?
- References:
- Is __int64 dead?
- From: xmllmx
- Re: Is __int64 dead?
- From: Joseph M . Newcomer
- Is __int64 dead?
- Prev by Date: Re: How to use CimageList with CButton
- Next by Date: Re: A weird problem on union alignment, need help!
- Previous by thread: Re: Is __int64 dead?
- Next by thread: Re: Is __int64 dead?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|