Hi, On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:49:26PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote: > Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 18:23:42 +0900 2009: > > Right. Why don't we just ditch CARD32 and move to the native inttypes.h > > types everywhere but Xlib? > > Do you want to do this for all XID types? Also, I assume you're > proposing that we drop Cray support from the protocol headers at the > same time, right?
I mean just for CARDxx and INTxx, i.e. they really only have the number of bits implied by the type. XID/Atom/etc, where they're just used as unsigned long, will have to stay that way. Shrug. (And I have no objection to dropping Cray support.) > My only question is whether we want to retain the existing abstract > types to make the interfaces a bit more 'self documenting'. In what sense is CARD32/INT32 more self-documenting than uint32_t/int32_t? The only times I've seen people pick up CARD32, they've gone 'oh, this is a 32-bit value we hand to the video card'. Fail. Cheers, Daniel
pgpUq0c38gr5h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
