09-20-2025, 06:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2025, 07:28 PM by madscijr.
Edit Reason: cleaned up embarassing typos
)
(If it differs by OS or 64 vs 32-bit, I'm in 64-bit Windows 10/11.)
Since QB64PE doesn't have a dedicated boolean type and _TRUE/_FALSE are numbers -1 & 0, I usually just dim those variables as integer.
However, I seem to recall someone saying, back in the days of QB64 2.0, that Long was the numeric type most "native" to QB64 under the hood, but I could be hallucinating that memory.
Or what about _BYTE ? I would think _BYTE would be the logical choice. But I also recall reading that on a 64-bit CPU, the data type requiring the least wrangling under the hood is INTEGER64 - which would be an egregious waste of space for a boolean (unless one INTEGER64 could be repurposed somehow to store 64 booleans?)
Thoughts?
Since QB64PE doesn't have a dedicated boolean type and _TRUE/_FALSE are numbers -1 & 0, I usually just dim those variables as integer.
However, I seem to recall someone saying, back in the days of QB64 2.0, that Long was the numeric type most "native" to QB64 under the hood, but I could be hallucinating that memory.
Or what about _BYTE ? I would think _BYTE would be the logical choice. But I also recall reading that on a 64-bit CPU, the data type requiring the least wrangling under the hood is INTEGER64 - which would be an egregious waste of space for a boolean (unless one INTEGER64 could be repurposed somehow to store 64 booleans?)
Thoughts?
