Re: (fully qualified) names of basic types

E used to use "integer" for exactly this reason. But no one liked
that, and the switch to "int", despite the huge differences from the C
int, seemed to please everyone at the time. For characters, I think we
should stick with "char" regardless.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> We recently had a discussion on IRC about what the FQNs of the basic
> types such as integer, float, string, etc. should be on E
> implementations that are not Java-based, since it would be
> inappropriate to use java.lang.*. We decided to use
> org.erights.e.elib.atom.*.
>
> Further question: What are the *names* of these two types:
>
> Int or Integer?
> Char or Character?
>
> Allen Short and I would prefer the latter options.
>
> [12:49] dash: i'd lean towards the former
> [12:50] dash: on reflection "Integer" and "Character" seem better
> choices
> [12:50] dash: my first thought was that 'Int' and 'Char' reflect the
> limitations of the C types of the same names
> [12:51] dash: char currently shares some of those, integers don't
> [12:52] dash: conceivably, future implementations would not have a
> fixed-width restriction for characters either
> [12:52] dash: so invoking that resemblance wouldn't be helpful
>
> --
> Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> e-lang mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang
>



-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM