Message284406
| Author |
eric.snow |
| Recipients |
brett.cannon, eric.snow, grahamd, ncoghlan, serhiy.storchaka, steve.dower, vstinner |
| Date |
2016-12-31.18:34:56 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1483209296.61.0.020791833935.issue29102@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
|
| Content |
Thanks for pointing that out, Victor. Given the precedent I switched to using int64_t. The patch actually uses PY_INT64_T, but I didn't see a reason to use int64_t directly. FWIW, there *are* a few places that use int_fast64_t, but they are rather specialized and I didn't want this patch to be a place where I had to deal with setting a more general precedent. :) |
|