Re: Numerics
Peter Gummer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.eiffel.smalleiffel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 23/03/2005, at 5:45 PM, Paolo Redaelli wrote:
> But {REAL_32} 1.0 would suffice.... see chapter 29.3 "FORCING A TYPE ON
> A CONSTANT" in ETL3, page 679.
> ...
>> Isn't INTEGER INTEGER_32 ?
> No, INTEGER is now 64 bit, in ETL3. I'm not wholeheartly entusiast
> about
> this choice. I personally prefer to let the developer choose its
> default.
But ETL3 page 679 currently also says, "Depending on a global setting
that you can override through a compilation option, INTEGER is a
synonym for either INTEGER_32 or INTEGER_64."
Dominique has pointed out, however, that there is a problem with
INTEGER changing its size. I guess he must be hoping to convince ECMA
that it's not a good idea.
- Peter Gummer