Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Time for 64-bit longs?
Message-ID: <27300001@ccvaxa>
Date: Tue, 10-Feb-87 18:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.27300001
Posted: Tue Feb 10 18:35:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Feb-87 19:01:53 EST
References: <848@epimass.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:epimass.UUCP:848:ccvaxa:27300001:000:692
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Feb 10 17:35:00 1987


> And will the future 128-byte pointer be a "long long long" ?

This just points out the stupidity of declaring the range of an
integer value through words rather than numbers.

If you really need 32, 64, or 128 bits, a decent language would let
you say int range (-2^32, 2^32-1), or int range (-2E9,+2E9), and choose
the appropriate type for you. Maybe int range(32b).

The confusion about "long" is just like the confusion about "billion"
and "milliard". I can never remember if I'm thinking British or American,
so I just say "E9" or "E12".

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms.arpa