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

Re: Revised draft available

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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

(And so on, for all of the signed vs unsigned integer representation