Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Suggestion for Int32.rotate
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-02-06 (22:40)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Suggestion for Int32.rotate

>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.

I agree with this.  Better to give absolute bit lengths in the syntax than to make more abbreviations.  But yes, 1234i32 is unreadable.  1234n32 is better.  1234N32 is okay as well.

>Just my €0.02 worth of suggestions... I can live with L and LL.

Same here about L and LL (worth $0.0173425 at today's rate).


Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: