From: Marsh J. Ray (marsh.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-31 22:22:24
Beman Dawes wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
> > int_be8_t
> > int_le8_t
> > uint_be8_t
>> uint_le8_t
I like it.
> int_b1_t
> int_l1_t
> uint_b1_t
> uint_l1_t
I'd vote to keep the 'e'.
On many fonts/displays the lowercase 'L' and digit one are nearly
indistinguishable. While this probably isn't an overriding concern in
the naming of most identifiers, consider how commonly-used the 'l1' or
'l16' versions would be. Also, 'll' is likely to be used as a prefix for
"long long".
>
> I tried it both ways over the years. The problem with using bit sizes
> is that a programmer is often counts these things, and always in
> terms of bytes. Bytes is just more convenient than bits.
> <>
> Also, working in terms of bytes seems to signal to readers that
> something special is going on - int_b32_t is more likely to be
> mistakenly viewed as just another typedef for an int32_t than bin4 or
> bin4_t.
I think the bit-count nomenclature is currently far more widely used,
and specifically by boost/cstdint.hpp. Consider the confusion that would
occur between with int8_t being a char while int_l8_t is a long long!
- Marsh