Re: (c.harding 22613) int vs long in ldapext-ldap-c-api-01

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>]

David Lindner wrote:
> 
> > I believe the C API specification should be defined in terms of Standard
> > C but not require implementations nor applications to be written in
> > Standard C.  This was the approach taken with POSIX and has suited both
> > implementors and application developers well.
> 
> So what does that mean?

It means that the terminology of Standard C can be used to describe
an interface that doesn't require Standard C to implement nor use.

Using the terminology of the Standard C provides clarity.  Not
restricting
implementations and users allows the interface to be enjoyed by a wider
audience WITHOUT expense of the those who might choose to implement or
develop applications using using Standard C.

> It sounds like you're agreeing with Chris' suggestion. ISO C is Standard C.

Chris' suggestion was to use at type that is not defined as in ISO/IEC
9899.

> > As such, the C API should only require types/structures/defines that are
> > available in LCD C (Least Common Denominator C).  Requiring a type which
> > is widely available would not be wise.
> 
> What standard is LCD C defined in?

LCD C is term used to describe the subset of C features (standard or
not)
that are commonly available in C translators.

The current draft does not clarify the terms in which it is defined nor
restricts
implementations or use to particular flavor of C.
	I do support clarification of the terminology used.
	I do not support restricting implementations or use of the interface
	to solely ISO/IEC 9899 (or any other standard).

Kurt