02-25-2024, 08:58 AM
It's just a personal preference. I'd personallu rather just have a single command than have to have a different one for each type out there.
bit, byte, integer, long, integer64 -- all signed and unsigned
single, double, float
offset -- signed and unsigned
15 new commands just to convert a value to the proper type. (If I'm counting right at 4AM in the morning.
)
If one was to go that route, I think I'd personally prefer a very simple number type system:
Int1, Int8, Int16, Int32,Int64 -- all integers, with the number being the number of bits in them.
UInt1, UInt8, UInt16, UInt32, UInt64 -- all unsigned integers, with the numbers representing bits in them.
Float32, Float64, Float256 -- same here for floating point values.
Short names, with less typing involved, and which would all group closely together and be easily to see/highlight in the wiki for learning purposes. (Personally, I think having to type _Unsigned_Integer64(-1 * UL) would end up breaking my fingers after pasting it into the machine 1000 times. )
bit, byte, integer, long, integer64 -- all signed and unsigned
single, double, float
offset -- signed and unsigned
15 new commands just to convert a value to the proper type. (If I'm counting right at 4AM in the morning.
)If one was to go that route, I think I'd personally prefer a very simple number type system:
Int1, Int8, Int16, Int32,Int64 -- all integers, with the number being the number of bits in them.
UInt1, UInt8, UInt16, UInt32, UInt64 -- all unsigned integers, with the numbers representing bits in them.
Float32, Float64, Float256 -- same here for floating point values.
Short names, with less typing involved, and which would all group closely together and be easily to see/highlight in the wiki for learning purposes. (Personally, I think having to type _Unsigned_Integer64(-1 * UL) would end up breaking my fingers after pasting it into the machine 1000 times. )