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

[dhansen@btree.com (Dave Hansen)]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:58:00 GMT, seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
wrote:

>In article <WnYu3.1310$pC1.95872@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>,
>Spehro Pefhany  <speff@interlog.com> wrote:
>>In comp.arch.embedded Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net> 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.
>
>>Can you give a reference for this? The number 32767 appears only twice in
>>the 680 page C++ draft standard, the first is an example, and the second
>>refers to the pre-processor. 
>
>Can't speak for C++, but for C, I think it's in Translation Limits.
>

I can't speak for C89, but the latest C9x draft I have (n869) lists
them in Numerical Limits, Sizes of Integer Types, �5.2.4.1

Regards,

                          -=Dave
Just my (10-010) cents
I can barely speak for myself, so I certainly can't speak for B-Tree.
Change is inevitable.  Progress is not.