🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 15 Dec 92 18:22:28 GMT, steve@taumet.com (Steve Clamage) said:

> The next C standard will probably support an integer type longer than
> type long.  The C++ Committee has no proposals that I know of for
> adding such a type.  When it is added to C, it will certainly be
> added to C++.  If the ANSI C numerical extensions group decides on a
> longer integer type and it looks likely to be included in C, I would
> expect the C++ Committee to adopt it.  It is thus possible that C++
> will have it officially before C, if only due to timing.

> Whether the longer type will be called "long long" or something else is
> anyone's guess.

I've heard a lot of talk about "long long", but never understood why C would
need new syntax to represent a 64-bit integer.  Is there anything wrong with:

	char	-	8 bits
	short	-	16 bits
	int	-	32 bits		(16 on 16-bit architecture)
	long	-	64 bits		(32 on 16-bit architecture)
	long long -	128 bits	(64 on 16-bit architecture)

--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
davidm@consilium.com				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies."
-- Honore de Balzac