Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t

[Lourival Vieira Neto <lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Justin Cormack
<justin%specialbusservice.com@localhost> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Lourival Vieira Neto
> <lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Christos Zoulas 
>> <christos%zoulas.com@localhost> wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 10:46am, lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost (Lourival Vieira 
>>> Neto) wrote:
>>> -- Subject: Re: [patch] changing lua_Number to int64_t
>>>
>>> | On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost> 
>>> wrote:
>>> | > Am 17.11.13 04:49, schrieb Terry Moore:
>>> | >> I believe that if you want the Lua scripts to be portable across NetBSD
>>> | >> deployments, you should choose a well-known fixed width.
>>> | >
>>> | > I don't see this as very important.  Lua scripts will hardly depend on
>>> | > the size of an integer.
>>> |
>>> | But they could. I think that the script programmers should know if the
>>> | numeric data type is enough for their usage (e.g., time diffs).
>>>
>>> By making it the biggest type possible, you never need to be worried.
>>
>> Right.. you just convinced me.. if no one opposes, I'll change that to
>> intmax_t and get rid of PRI/SCNd64 =).
>
> 1. Lua 5.3 will have 64 bit integer support as standard, which will
> make interop and reuse between kernel and userspace code much easier,
> iff we use int64_t

If they are using int64_t for integers, I think it is a good reason to us to
stick to int64_t.

Regards,
-- 
Lourival Vieira Neto