Re: Removing some workarounds for big integers

[Philipp Stephani]

Am So., 9. Aug. 2020 um 17:39 Uhr schrieb Philipp Stephani
<p.stephani2@gmail.com>:
>

> >
> > To work around this problem, the macro could have another argument, being 
> > the
> > lvalue destination; that would avoid these problems. However, it'd be more
> > awkward to use. At some point it's easier to avoid the macro and use the
> > underlying functions.
>
> I wouldn't agree to that. The large advantage of packaging the
> conversion up into a single macro is that the range check is always
> correct and only needs to be coded once. Repeating the range check for
> each caller is rather error-prone. So I think a void-returning macro
> makes sense. It wouldn't even need another argument, as the type
> follows from the destination. (At least if __typeof__ is available.)

Actually it might be easier to enumerate all integer types using
_Generic. Since we now require C11, that should always be available.