Re: sh_int question

From: Christopher Avans (parka@CDC.NET)
Date: 06/07/98

On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Chuck Reed wrote:

> >We try to be sarcastic below, buts I will try not to.
> >No sh_int to int is not a improvement if he wants long.
> It may be.  He doesn't know the different variable types very well
> obviously, he may not know what the sizes are for each.  That's why I gave
> him both options.  Thanks for the input tho.
> >sh_long is not a normal context, but you could typedef it as that.
> >though you may loose portability to some OS's
> Doesnt make too much sense to me . . .

Well if one is uss xcl with say sgi irix hpunx or nmake under dos
(May work on everything, not going to say)
you can do this.
typedef signed short int        sh_asshole;
typedef signed long  int        sh_long;
typedef unsigned short int      xfile_int;

be hard for others to help you code though.heh

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST