🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <HBF.95Jul31180524@durin.uio.no>, h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no (Hallvard B Furuseth) writes:
> It *requires* nothing of the sort.  It *offers* the possibility, if you
> want it.
Yes, it requires it, if I want to declare a variable of the shortest 'int'
that can hold a numeral of so manie digits.  No other feature suggested is
useful, and therefore no "atleast:" is reallie needed.

> Huh?  What do you use C for?  I think I use it for something else.
> (I assume "processor nativlie" means "native processor").
No--I meant just that which I wrote.

> sizeof(builtin type) and sizeof(builtin type *) can be done in the
> preprocessor, though I don't expect it will.  &c cannot be done.
That is not good.  You misunderstand "&c".

> You'd prefer the preprocessor to understand it?  So would I, but note
> that if the preprocessor could expand `sizeof(int atleast:18)' -> `32'
> you'd *still* have to insert `atleast:' in the language too.
> (Or with some other syntax, of course).
*sigh* I forget the original context of my comment ....  There is no need for
"atleast:", though, and that makes it simple.

> So, sure, it would be nice if the preprocessor really understood C types
> (unless you've got to implement it:-)  But this is a separate issue, and
> should be treated as such.
And therefore I want this onlie for inbilt types.

> Also, note that quite a bit of what you are doing with the preprocessor
> probably can be reduced to `if (0) ... else ...' and can be done just as
> well by the compiler's optimizer.
Well, I am stuck with real compilers, with optimizers that don't (or wors),
not with compilers from Cockaigne.

> Encumber the implementor, yes.  The programmer, no.  If you don't like
> it, you don't have to use it.
Yes encumber the programmer, for more than this is required:
	int 18 x;

> You just don't think this is useful enough to warrant a change in the
> language?  That's a reasonable point of view, of course.  But then you
> can certainly forget your `return parameter' request too, that doesn't
> even add anything to the language which can't be done already.
You misunderstand me.  As for my suggestion, note that the subject-line
said "wishful thinking".  Although I like it, I was moovd to write it in
part from all the bows, ribbons, and furbelows of the integer-range stuff.