Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!oliveb!sun!pepper!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
Subject: Re: C machine
Message-ID: <38738@sun.uucp>
Date: 13 Jan 88 18:26:24 GMT
References: <7535@alice.UUCP> <8226@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <461@auvax.UUCP> <9961@mimsy.UUCP> <166@teletron.UUCP> <6936@brl-smoke.ARPA> <147@ateng.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 13

In article <147@ateng.UUCP> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> I prefer 16 bits myself, but that's a religious issue, and far be it from
> me to start an argument.  :-)

Certainly that is a valid preference :-). But on the subject, when I wrote
a BASIC interpreter for a Z80 (I know, this is comp.sys.m68k) I wrote it
using 32 bit ints even though I had to go to great pains to do so simply
because 32 bits were so much more useful than 16. I left 16 bit ints in
as 'shorts' because they were useful for things like array indices. 

--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.