Um? *boggle* Silly question about listobject.c

[Courageous]

> > After running through a quick bit-shifting test, I discovered
> > to my chagrine that I was thinking for some dumb reason that
> > int was 16 bits.
> 
> It can be, eg. on m68k Macs with appropriate compiler settings.
> Isn't, on any commodity hardware newer than that, afaik.

Well, part of the problem is that routinely over the years,
I use long when I want 32 bits, short when I need to conserve
space (16 bits), and int when I don't care. I'd never really
thought for long what an int was. Funny, considering I've
been doing this business for a decade.

This is yet another one of those arguments in favor of
expressions like int16 and int32 working their way into the
language itself, IMO. Albeit I'm familiar with the reasons
why the committees have rejected such notions in the past.



C/