[dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Johannes Hofmann <johannes.hofmann_AT_gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:57:57 +0100

Hi,

why is a type that can have a different number of bits on 32/64 bit
systems used for Glyph.fg and Glyph.bg?
Wouldn't unsigned int be enough?

Regards,
Johannes
Received on Wed Nov 13 2013 - 11:57:57 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero: "Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?"
Previous message: Strake: "Re: Asshole vs. reality [was: Re: [dev] Question about arg.h]"
Next in thread: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero: "Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?"
Reply: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero: "Re: [dev] [st] why is Glyph.fg, Glyph.bg long?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Nov 13 2013 - 12:00:14 CET