[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: David Van Horn <dvanhorn@xxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: Revised draft available*From*: campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 12:09:28 -0800 (PST)*Cc*: srfi-58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0501021129190.30778-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Also, one minor, not very significant, comment on the names: perhaps it > would be better to use, for example, INTEGER16 vs INTEGER16+, to > indicate that the latter has no implicit sign while the former does. > (A hyphen between INTEGER & the number could be added as well.) As it > is, it looks like it's 'some integer minus sixteen' vs 'some integer > plus sixteen.' Sorry, I ought to have been a bit more clear here. My suggestion is that, rather than have INTEGER-16 mean 'signed integer' (i.e. there is a sign stored with the integer) and have INTEGER+16 mean 'unsigned integer' (i.e. the sign could be considered to always be positive), there should be instead INTEGER16 or INTEGER-16, for signed sixteen-bit integers (i.e. integers without a sign automatically assigned to them), and INTEGER16+ or INTEGER-16+, for unsigned sixteen-bit integers (i.e. integers with an automatic positive sign). As it is, INTEGER-16 vs INTEGER+16 looks like 'an integer minus sixteen' vs 'an integer plus sixteen.' (And so on, for all of the signed vs unsigned integer representation descriptors.)

**References**:**Re: Revised draft available***From:*campbell

- Prev by Date:
**Re: #\a octothorpe syntax vs SRFI 10** - Next by Date:
**unbounded chars considered dangerous (Re: strings and char arrays)** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Revised draft available** - Next by thread:
**Revised draft available** - Index(es):