On 10/7/22 7:43 AM, Piotr P. Stefaniak wrote:
On 2022-10-07 16:21:01, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Would uint32_t be more clear?
I don't disagree with the style change to the point that I demand it be
corrected, please keep it the way it is now to avoid more churn.
Agreed.
I just opposed the more general idea that this is an improvement. I say
it's debatable, at least until we have style.9 rule one way or the other.
Yeah, I think it's a regression to be honest. None of the other unsigned base
C types (unsigned short, unsigned long, etc.) have these short cuts in the
language. I consider it bit of an odd anachronism. If you really want to use
a shorter spelling of "unsigned int" in the tree, I think "u_int" is a better
choice and more typical in FreeBSD.
--
John Baldwin
