sarahWhy did the System V ‘{uchar,ushort,uint,ulong}_t’ types ever fall out of favor?
I always found them more aesthetically pleasing than the BSD-style ‘u_{char,short,int,long}’ types.
And by extension, a pattern I’ve seen a lot in Solaris is the extensive use of structure typedef alias definitions. BSD is the complete opposite, except for probably NetBSD, which does use some of them. (i.e: proc_t versus struct proc, or vnode_t versus struct vnode)
I found out why, it’s to reduce header declaration duplication and inclusion of unneeded files.
(Though there’s some question as to the benefit of this considering how many files need <sys/types.h> and friends included before the header file anyway.)
Siguza
Joshua M. Clulow
Erin 💽✨@winocm tbh it's hard for me to see either of those sets of types as having been in favour but maybe it was before my time
bob@winocm don't most people use uint8_t, uint16_t, etc these days?
@bob yes, but this is just more of a historical curiosity than anything else
Tony Greenberg 
🌐@winocm I am partial to (u)intNN_t because I am an idiot and can never remember bit lengths of ints
Uli Kusterer (Not a kitteh)@winocm Apparently whoever was in charge of stdint.h agreed and went back to that style for uint64_t etc.