Rich Felker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:32:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
Rich Felker wrote:
Incidentally, using UINT8_MAX UINT16_MAX and INT32_MAX is absolutely idiotic. These are not system-specific limits but the numbers 255, 65535, and 2147483647.
That doesn't necessarily make it idiotic to use symbolic names for them; it makes the code (potentially/arguably) more readable, by referring to the reason why this specific number is being used instead of just having an apparently arbitrary number. I've done vaguely similar things in some of my own code, a few times in the past, albeit with names I defined myself rather than more broadly general ones.
(1<<8)-1, etc. are quite readable and explicit at the same time.. Same goes for 0xff, 0xffff, ...
Point. I wouldn't find the former syntax especially readable, but that's almost certainly because I'm not yet intuitively familiar with the concept of bitshifting; the latter syntax is quite comprehensible to me. I'm not necessarily willing to start calling the use of the symbolic names idiotic, but I am willing to concede the issue. ^_^ -- The Wanderer Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any side of it. Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.