Subject: Re: long long vs long
From: [email-masked] (Earnie Boyd)

22 Jul 1998 20:14:55 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: gw32 <[email-masked]>

Or why not set a new standard something like

int8, int16, int32, int64 to indicate the number of bits.

---Graham Murray  wrote:
>
> This is probably a silly question, but rather than having long long
for
> 64 bit, why was long not made 64bit? The standard (AFAIK) states that
> short <= int <= long.  So, it should be possible for long to be 64 bit
> rather than 32. This would give a simple progression from 8bit chars
to
> 64bit longs.
> -
> For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a
message to
> "[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".
> 

==
-        \\||//
---o0O0--Earnie--0O0o----
[email-masked]
------ooo0O--O0ooo-------

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".