19 Oct
2005
19 Oct
'05
9:27 a.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct
2005, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
... therefore using an 18-bit int would be silly. If you were using a
machine with a 9-bit byte length (not parity, actually 9 bits) then it
wouldn't seem such a bad idea.
Gordon.
Actually, I AGREE with those size recommendations.
I LIKE having 8 bit chars, 16 bit ints, 32 bit longs;
but there are some bizarre vintage implementations out there,
and on the old stuff, you can not count on a specific size.
But only because the hardware you're used to
using C on suits these sizes.
You're absolutely right.
I like those sizes, because they're a good fit with my hardware.