🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1995Aug17.002758.15662@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, A.Main@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Zefram) writes
:  ....
: I think exact semantics are used sufficiently that language support is
: warranted.  At the moment, there is a great deal of code that assumes
: that int (or sometimes long) is exactly 32 bits, and that short is
: exactly 16 bits.  Much code relies on variables declared as unsigned
: int having a range of 0 to 0xffffffff.  If no form of exact
: specification is provided, people *will* write code that relies on int
: :64 (or int atleast:64) having exactly 64 bits (which it will in most
: implementations).  The SBEIR paper explains the need for the exact:
: specification quite well.

I suspect that all theze exact lengths are there becauz the lengths are
exact:  that is, a 32-bit-long 'int' is declared becauz the programmer wants
all the bits that the processor has.  In concluzion, I suspect that the
exact lengths are a matter of inquirie: I wish this manie, I get houmanie
for my wish?