Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

[seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)]

In article <vrfrkiuj-1Dh14#019E@batcher.bog>,
Zefram Cochrane <aaccss9911.undouble@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>But that's not all!  Each type must be able to represent a certain range
>>of values.  For 'short', that range is +/- 32,767.  For 'int', it is also
>>+/- 32,767.  For 'long', it is +/- 2,147,483,647, and you can't do that
>>without 32 bits.

>Are you sure about that ? A short has to be able to represent 32
>bits ?! That would make things very inefficient on a 16- or 8-
>bit processor. The primary reason for using "short" over "int"
>is to save space (especially in arrays). If a short has to be
>at least 32 bits, there seems little point in having it.

32,767 doesn't exactly require 32 bits.  ;)

-s
-- 
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved.  Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter.  Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware.  http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!