faure at kde.org
Tue Jan 10 20:42:19 GMT 2006
On Tuesday 10 January 2006 21:34, Till Adam wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 07:56, Thomas Braxton wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 December 2005 00:13, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Thomas Braxton wrote:
> > > >Int64 was already there I just changed Int -> Int32 to be more explicit
> > > > about it's size, and got rid of Long which was ambiguous. Anyways how
> > > > would you be able to tell if a single byte was an int8 or a char?
> > >
> > > It's up to the implementation to decide that. My point is: using (or not
> > > using) sizes to denote the various int types is an arbitrary decision,
> > > just as using one single int type.
> > so what do you think we should do about it? i haven't recieved any feedback
> > on my post about kconfig_compiler/Int/Int32.
> > http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=113562560619127&w=2
> I don't think it makes much sense to let users of kconfigXT speculate as to
> the number of bits used for storing their integer config value. If they worry
> it might not be enough, give them a "very large" type, in addition to "UInt".
> I would propose to do as the QVariants do, and use UInt and ULongLong,
> instead of the current Int32 and Int64.
I agree; this is perfectly in line with the recent "port" of KConfig to QVariant;
we'd better use the same type system otherwise it will be a mess.
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
More information about the kde-core-devel