On Monday 28 of March 2011, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Hi Lubos, > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:45:11 +0200 > > Lubos Lunak <l.lu...@suse.cz> wrote: > > Specifically, the simple and logical type for numbers happens to be > > 'int'. Some kind of intptr type is usually only for ugly hacks, and > > bit-precise types are mainly for marshalling. Is there any point in > > keeping the task as it is or can I change it to 'use sal_uInt32 if > > the precise size is need, e.g. for marshalling, use sal_uIntPtr if it > > is used for storing pointer value, otherwise simply use int'? And, > > looking at this description, is there any plan to get rid of these > > superfluous sal_xxx types eventually? > > IHMO, our aim should be to have _one_ canonical set of numerical types > in LibreOffice, and not one for marshalling, one for other cases.
Why not? I generally just need a number and int fits that perfectly. I really don't care how many bits it has as long as it works and don't need to wonder if I should use sal_Int32, sal_UInt16, sal_Int64 or whatever. > Using non sal_* numeric types is just asking for trouble in the long > run, because some day you will need to marshall that stuff somewhere. How is that different from having different sal_whatever in the code and marshalling with that? If size-specific types are kept only for marshalling, then it's at least obvious what the marshalling format is. > And there is absolutely no hurt in using the sal_* typedefs(*). It's more typing and it's foreign to anybody not used to the codebase. Sure, that may sound like silly reasons, but it's still two more reasons than I can come up with for the other way around. Besides, I have already seen a number of commits changing BOOL/sal_Bool to bool, so at least some people seem to see the value of abandoning the sal_ types where not necessary. -- Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
