On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 10:34 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
Note:
C99 has been a standard for quite a while now. why are we not using
the standardized type for these. that is:
int8_t uint8_t, int16_t, uint16_t, int32_t, uint32_t, int64_t,
uint64_t, intptr_t, uintptr_t,...
Actually, I've been a proponent of these data types myself. So I
personally would much prefer using these types over sal_Foo data types.
So, no objection there from me. :-)
Having said that, extensions do use those sal_Foo data types, so we
should still leave the definitions of those data types where they are
for the time being.
But in our core code base, using the standard int types should be okay I
think. Note, I'm heavily biased, and probably overlooking some gotchas.
Kohei
--
Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc
<kyoshida@novell.com>
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.