## digitalmars.D - Re: We need to clarify if 'real' is the 'default floating point type' or not.

• renoX (5/8) Mar 04 2008 So int would mean 8 bit integers?
• Ameer Armaly (4/16) Mar 04 2008 I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier: auto. If you want optim...
• JMNorris (5/8) Mar 06 2008 I assume you're proposing a change in the way auto works. Currently for...
• Ameer Armaly (7/15) Mar 06 2008 Not really. Suppose you're on a 64-bit machine.
renoX <renosky free.fr> writes:
```Ameer Armaly Wrote:
Maybe we just ought to make int
whatever type is fastest, and call the current int something different,
maybe dword?

So int would mean 8 bit integers?
I'm joking but for some operation 8 bit int *are* 'fastest' than 32 bit int,
because they use less cache, memory..

Anything else that intX, uintX is necessarily arbitrary (and even intX is not
that simple: some DSP have 24bit integers..), so I'm not sure that it's quite
useful to spend too much time on that topic.

renoX
```
Mar 04 2008
"Ameer Armaly" <ameer.armaly furman.edu> writes:
```"renoX" <renosky free.fr> wrote in message
news:fqj8i1\$1m01\$1 digitalmars.com...
Ameer Armaly Wrote:
Maybe we just ought to make int
whatever type is fastest, and call the current int something different,
maybe dword?

So int would mean 8 bit integers?
I'm joking but for some operation 8 bit int *are* 'fastest' than 32 bit
int, because they use less cache, memory..

Anything else that intX, uintX is necessarily arbitrary (and even intX is
not that simple: some DSP have 24bit integers..), so I'm not sure that
it's quite useful to spend too much time on that topic.

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier: auto. If you want optimal
int types, isn't that part of the  rationale behind type inference?
renoX

```
Mar 04 2008
JMNorris <nospam nospam.com> writes:
```"Ameer Armaly" <ameer.armaly furman.edu> wrote in
news:fqjl0e\$2mi4\$1 digitalmars.com:

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier: auto. If you want
optimal int types, isn't that part of the  rationale behind type
inference?

I assume you're proposing a change in the way auto works.  Currently for:

auto x = 5 < 7;

x has type bool.
```
Mar 06 2008
"Ameer Armaly" <ameer.armaly furman.edu> writes:
```"JMNorris" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fqonmv\$25gh\$1 digitalmars.com...
"Ameer Armaly" <ameer.armaly furman.edu> wrote in
news:fqjl0e\$2mi4\$1 digitalmars.com:

I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier: auto. If you want
optimal int types, isn't that part of the  rationale behind type
inference?

I assume you're proposing a change in the way auto works.  Currently for:

auto x = 5 < 7;

x has type bool.

Not really. Suppose you're on a 64-bit machine.
auto x = 5;
should yield a long, where as on a 32-bit machine it should yield an int
It's not perfect by any stretch, but it's easier given the current
circumstances.
```
Mar 06 2008