Re: Coding style question

[Tim McIntosh]

On Apr 14, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
> Well, I'm still stunning why people prefer variable types of  
> undefined size[1] (int, NSInteger, etc.) over those with defined  
> size (int16, int32, int64, etc.). To my understanding of coding, one  
> should always care about the size of variables, ruling out types of  
> undefined size. Additionally, ideal code compiles and works on a 16  
> bit platform just as good as on a 128 bit platform, without  
> conditional code or similar clutches.

Generally, I think one should care about the minimum guaranteed range  
of variables, not the exact size.  The exact size should only be  
important if one needs to rely on the overflow or modulo properties of  
the type, or perform I/O using a machine-independent network packet or  
file format.  Using exact-sized types in cases where it is not  
necessary is over-specification, and may produce suboptimal code in  
some situations.

At least as of C99, C specifies minimum ranges to be supported by the  
built-in types (see 5.2.4.2 Numerical Limits).  I'm not sure if this  
was true prior to C99.

-Tim