On 2002.02.06 21:43 Frederic van der Plancke wrote:
> Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:01:51PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > 
> > > A C-style syntax would be 12345L for int32 and 123456789LL for
> > > int64; what about nativeint?  12345N ?  Anything nicer?
> > 
> 
> A small problem of 12345L is that "L" for "long" is not justified on
> 64-bit platforms, and more importantly it is not at all obvious what
> length it actually represents.
> 
> What about 12345i32, 123456789i64, like some C(++) compilers do; that would
> preserve extensibility (in case one wants 123456789i128 in the future),
> and makes the value types clearer and more consistent,
> even though it makes the actual values somewhat less readable, specially
> if one uses an uppercase I. ('N' or (why not) 'L' could be used instead.)
> For native ints we could then chose either 12345i or 12345n. And keep
> the other one for arbitrary-sized integers.

Why not allow "_" in integer literals, so one can write

12345_i32, 123456789_i64, 123_456_789_i64, 123456789_nat,
123456789_big (for bigints). I think this kind of suffix is easier
to remember than a single letter.

Gerd
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann      Telefon: +49 6151 997705 (privat)
Viktoriastr. 45             
64293 Darmstadt     EMail:   gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de
Germany                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr