Dave,
I am fine with splitting the integer proposal into two pieces,
one for new integer types, and one for workarounds to unsigned.
Hopefully the new integer types are easier to address and will
move more quickly through the process. Your suggested wording
to incorporate the new integer types removes these three
sentences from my suggested wording:
"The convention explicitly distinguishes between signed and unsigned
integer types only where necessary. Unless otherwise noted, int is
interchangeable with unsigned int, int64, and unsigned int64 in this
convention, including examples and appendices. Similarly short is
interchangable with unsigned short, and byte with unsigned byte."
Many said that my draft text, as a whole, was fine with them.
You explained that CF 1.8 should not include these sentences because
"This topic is confusing, lacking context, and I think unnecessary."
I responded to this critique, on 9/21, opining that CF should
explicitly clarify that/how interchanging int types is allowed.
Those three sentences were intended to provide this clarity.
Their "repeal without replacement" streamlines the text by increasing
ambiguity on the topics they addressed.
That is my comment. Thank you for considering it.
Charlie
--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(
Received on Fri Sep 29 2017 - 12:08:00 BST
