Markus Koskimies Wrote:
> - i8, i16, i32, i64, ..., u8, u16, u32, ... or intXX / uintXX variants, since if you need to know the width of the number, you think it in bits. No use to use bytes, it's just confusing.

I too would prefer to have integer sizes in terms of bits rather than bytes as well.

As far as what my ideal integer declaration syntax is, I'm still not sure.  I certainly hate tying the hands of the optimizer to use a specific size integer just because it's part of the language spec.  It may be good to standardize sizes for serialization, even if things are stored in a native size.

I also wonder about how overflow/underflow should be handled when -release is not used.  Of course, I shouldn't even be thinking about that when there's no check against dereferences nulls