On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 06:34:28AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > a real solution would be one of > 0 copy u.h; hack to taste > 1 add the hacks to the real u.h > 2 come to a concensus with go about what the defined-bit-width > types should be called. change both plan 9 and go to conform. > > i'd vote for 2. it's harder that way, but i'd hate for go to > feel like it was pasted on. but i'd like to know what everyone > else thinks. > I don't think anything comes near to 2 as a solution. And it really isn't all that invasive either. Add my vote to yours.
++L
