On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 03:06:06PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:00:47AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>
> > struct {
> > IV whatitis;
>
> more a perl5 question - why IV not int?
> int might be smaller and "more natural" (your words)
That's K&R's words, not mine... and that's only an ideal, not always
the real truth. E.g. in Digital UNIX a long of 64 bits is very
natural, an int (32 bits) is a nice backward compatibility concession.
> eg why does looks_like_number return IV not int? and various other bits
> of the perl API use IV?
>
> Nicholas Clark
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
