• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Xcode 2 Question
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Xcode 2 Question


  • Subject: Re: Xcode 2 Question
  • From: Clark Cox <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:17:49 -0400

On 5/5/05, Markian Hlynka <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2005, at 17:03, Shawn Erickson wrote:
>
> >
> > On May 4, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Markian Hlynka wrote:
> >
> >> In Xcode 1.5, if you had structs with member functions, they
> >> completely fubared the function menu in xcode. For example:
> >>
> >> typedef struct __PartialMove
> >> {
> >>     //PartialMove is a coordinate!
> >>
> >>     short r,c;    //source and destintion row and column.
> >>    //shorts are 16 bits (2 bytes), at least that's what they are
> >> right now!
> >>
> >>     bool operator==(const struct __PartialMove &b)
> >>     {
> >>         return    (r == b.r) && (c == b.c);
> >>     }
> >>    bool operator!=(const struct __PartialMove &b)
> >>    {
> >>          return !( (r == b.r) && (c == b.c) );
> >>          //alternatively, (r != b.r) || (c != b.c);
> >>    }
> >>
> >> } PartialMove;
> >
> > Ugh ;-)
> >
> > If you really want to insure a certain sizing consider using int16_t
> > (#include <stdint.h>) instead of short (is a signed short really what
> > you want?).

I'd say that odds are, if short isn't 16-bits, then there will be no
int16_t defined. Remember that the exact width integer types are
*optional*.

> I'm aware of stdint.h, though I was also aware that it wasn't
> officially C++ yet.

You're correct, it isn't. Though GCC supports it as an extension.

> But, is there something wrong with just using
> "short"? I didn't need precisely 16 bits... I just didn't need anywhere
> near 32 of 'em. ie, I wanted something smaller, but not too small. char
> or byte would probably have done as well.

IMHO, that's exactly the reasoning that should lead someone to use short.

>
> Should I be explicitly choosing my sizes, then? Is it bad form to use
> "short" nowadays?

I'd say that, in this case 'short' is not only acceptable, but the right choice.


--
Clark S. Cox III
email@hidden
http://www.livejournal.com/users/clarkcox3/
http://homepage.mac.com/clarkcox3/
 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Xcode 2 Question
      • From: Shawn Erickson <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Xcode 2 Question (From: Markian Hlynka <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Xcode 2 Question (From: Shawn Erickson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Xcode 2 Question (From: Markian Hlynka <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Updated header files for 10.3.9?
  • Next by Date: Re: code sense
  • Previous by thread: Re: Xcode 2 Question
  • Next by thread: Re: Xcode 2 Question
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread