Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

What is the reason for using std::uint64_t? Shouldn't uint64_t work? C99 types should be already included in C++.

uint64_t is a typedef defined in stdint.h. std::uint64_t is defined in the std namespace in <cstdint>

Yes, though which do you propose should be used? It's nice that the type is wrapped in the std namespace, but for something like a basic standardized type, seems like a waste. I think I'd rather include stdint.h.

You're writing C++ code, no need to regress back to C.

Yes, but I agree with the commenter above. Wrapping it in std seems weird. By your logic, one shouldn't use int and long too, or may be they should be wrapped in std?

If it bothers you so much, just use 'using namespace std;' or 'using std::uint64_t;'.

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/namespace

Or just '#include <stdint.h>'. C++ is TIMTOWTDI too!

Yes, thank you (TIMTOWTDI)! I was just curious to see what other's used, and was sad to see this comment: "You're writing C++ code, no need to regress back to C." Really? Sure it's from C, but it's a part of C++.

Going the route `using std::uint64_t`, you'd have to do that for every basic type. Which is fine. I'd just use that in a general header that's included everywhere in a project (stdafx, or what have you). Though at that point it doesn't really matter which you pick.

I'd prefer them to be included in C++ as regular base types really, to be on equal terms with int, char and etc.

It's extremely useful for argument-dependant lookup[0]. If a and b are "uint64_t" and not "std::uint64_t" then "swap(a,b)" won't work in a generic fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument-dependent_name_lookup

Reply on news.ycombinator.com