"Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> wrote in message news:d23cl3$sp4$1@sea.gmane.org...
...
How do these strike you?
Jonathan
Doesn't this run into the same problems as the original standard does - what to do when there isn't an integral type large enough? The current library definition uses type long, because that is as wide as it gets!
Yes, but there are two ways around the problem. (1) Use long long. Almost all late-model C++ compilers already support long long, and the C++ committee is in process of adding it to the language. (2) Make it an implementation-defined type which must be able to hold the largest value the operating system supports. That means int or long is fine if sufficient for the platform. It also means that a type like __int64 could be used, or even long long itself. If the C++ committee's library working group (LWG) prefers to the additions go in C++0x, then (1) is fine. If the additions go in the second library technical report (TR2), then (2) might be better. --Beman