<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="color:var(--ui-page-color-fg);"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Proxima Nova", system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, Arial;">On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, at 19:21, Kurt Schwehr wrote:</span></span><br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><div dir="ltr"><div>- Q3: Yes to vsi_l_offset -> uint64_t. I'm 90% for it. For me: Yes offset has meaning, but if the type is critical to understanding a function / method interface, we should have a comment. Knowing that it's an unsigned 64 bit int is usually more important. Would be great if anyone against this change could speak up and give some examples.<br></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">It's 2023, not 1993. I'm going to assume that any library using 32 bits for file lengths or offsets is unmaintained. So I don't really care about the width here.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">As for the typedef, it's nice to have, but not terribly necessary either when you have good IDE tooling 2023, right?).<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">So I'm +0 on this change.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Laurentiu</div></body></html>