|
Subject: |
V4 design issue: Should primitive data types have well defined precisions? |
|
From: |
Marty Kraimer <[email protected]> |
|
To: |
EPICS Core Talk <[email protected]> |
|
Date: |
Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:27:02 -0500 |
Without agreement on the answer to the following question, it is hard to
see how we can agree on much else in epics V4.
Should primitive data types have well defined precisions?
epicsTypes says yes.
The only primitive types are:
For integer types it has epicsInt16, epicsInt32, and epicsInt64
It supports epicsFloat32, epicsFloat64
It also has epicsBoolean and epicsOctet
dataAccess says no.
for integer types it supports signed and unsigned char, short, int, and
long
it supports float and double
For array bounds it uses size_t.
For arguments of methods it often just uses "unsigned".
I will provide my opinion in a separate message
- Replies:
- Re: V4 design issue: Should primitive data types have well defined precisions? Marty Kraimer
- References:
- RE: Puts Dalesio, Leo `Bob`
- hello world examples Marty Kraimer
- Re: hello world examples Ralph Lange
- Re: hello world examples Marty Kraimer
- Re: hello world examples Ralph Lange
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: hello world examples Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: V4 design issue: Should primitive data types have well defined precisions? Marty Kraimer
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: hello world examples Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: V4 design issue: Should primitive data types have well defined precisions? Marty Kraimer
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
| 
·
Home
·
News
·
About
·
Base
·
Modules
·
Extensions
·
Distributions
·
Download
·