🚀 go-pugleaf

> I think that we can see the problem here: we're straining C's type system,
> because the usual `char', `short', `int', and `long' just can't cover 
> enough.  I'd very much like to see some sort of de-facto standard way to 
> specify the number of bits for an integral type, with both `exact' and `at 
> least' sizes.  This would make it easier to write portable programs, 
> without a lot of crap, and it would return old types like `int' to what 
> they're supposed to be.

Well, in Ada you can write

    type int is range -2**31 .. 2**31 - 1;
    type uint is mod 2**32;

which defines 32-bit signed and unsigned integer types.  What could be more
precise or portable?  (The underlying implementation is free to use 
32-bit, 64-bit, or 87-bit words to represent these types, and if you're 
concerned about physical representation, you can use a representation 
clause to specify the bit size of the type.)

Paul