Is uint missing on purpose?

[marcovc]

Hi!

While browsing this part of the util header,

// Discouraged: Variable precision names
// short
using ushort = unsigned short;
// int
using ulong = unsigned long;
// long
using longlong = long long;
using ulonglong = unsigned long long;
using longdouble = long double;

I noticed there is no uint. Is this on purpose?

[SRNissen]

Surprisingly, uint is not a C++ integer type.

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/types#Integer_types

[marcovc]

What do you mean? "unsigned int" is in that table, right?

[SRNissen]

My apologies, I misunderstood your question - you are of course right that cpp1 does have unsigned integers.

I thought you were asking about a type with the literal name 'uint' that some languages have.

[marcovc]

No worries, I suppose I should have explained myself better. I meant that, looking at the code it seems that cpp2 is introducing a set of type aliases abbreviating the signed/unsigned numeric types (resembling those in rust), but apparently misses "uint". I noticed because it is one that I use a lot :)

[hsutter]

Thanks! This was just an oversight, adding it now...

[hsutter]

Resolved with this commit: 7da4ff7

Thanks again.