half and quad
Chad J
gamerChad at _spamIsBad_gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 05:30:47 PDT 2007
Janice Caron wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Olifant <olifant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've always thought the names we have for built-in types are (mostly)
> horrible. ...
[snip]
>
> I'd vote for more obvious names any day:
> int8, int16, int32, int64, int128...
> uint8, uint16, uint32, uint64, uint128...
> real16, real32, real64, real80, real128...
>
> with "int", "uint" and "real" being aliases for whatever type is
> "machine native".
I agree, though I'd rather "int" be a big integer type that really does
handle all integers. Perhaps something like "word" for the machine
sized number.
Rationals would be cool too, though I doubt they are worthy of language
built-in-edness. If your language can mimic built in types perfectly
from a library implementation, then the doors are open for frac8,
frac16, frac32, etc. "frac" for fraction, since I'm not sure how I feel
about "rat" :) It seems that D is headed in this direction of
user-defined types that can mimic builtins, which is quite awesome.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list