integer sizes

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Jason House" <jason.james.house at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:f3f139$1hb8$1 at digitalmars.com...
> When I read http://www.digitalmars.com/d/portability.html, I see what I 
> started with in this e-mail is wrong.  Integral sizes could be increased. 
> Does that mean sizeof(int) and sizeof(long) will ever match? Or does that 
> mean that if sizeof(int) increases, so will long and cent?    I don't know 
> about others, but having sizeof(cent) != 128 seems really strange, even if 
> it is a hypothetical feature.

I think the integer type sizes are fixed -- int will always be 32 bits etc. 
I think what that page is referring to is if you are to write your code 
using some kind of alias, like size_t, make sure you don't depend upon its 
properties on one platform.

Of course, this could also be a vestige from an ancient incarnation of D 
when integer sizes weren't fixed.