On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 16:49 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > Which leaves us with a very fundamental issue. Namely that we can not > use TYPE_MIN_VALUE or TYPE_MAX_VALUE for ranges. > > The point is that it *is* supposed to be usable in general. If it can't > be used in a specific case, let's address that specific case and understand > what needs fixing. The intent is for it to be useful and usable information.. But if the values in there do not reflect the reality of what values are valid for the type, then I don't see how they can be generally useful -- that's my point. We have two fields that are inaccurate, apparently on purpose, and as a result they are basically unusable.
Jeff
