🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <412rfv$bs9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ffarance@aol.com (FFarance) writes
> That's the rationale for the at-least type: I want X bits (specified
> precision), how many did I get (actual precision).  The exact types
> are there to give exact semantics: I want exactly Z bits.
Erhm, no--I mean that in most of the cases of exact length requested
givven, with such types as "int32" and so on, getting exactlie 32 bits is
a _side_effect_ of that which the programmer wants: the programmer reallie
wants at least somanie digits (in one base or another), but withal wants
to know exactlie what the characteristics of the requested type are.
If he were sure of by sum means getting to know this, he would not
uze such types (as the aforesaid ("int32").

> Since signed bit fields aren't portable, ....
This needs better handling.