Browse thread
[Caml-list] Suggestion for Int32.rotate
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| 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).
Chris
-------------------
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