Re: data type for nargin

[John W. Eaton]

On 12/07/2015 11:26 AM, Rik wrote:

> Another point to consider is that unless you are especially compiling with
> 64-bit indexing, the octave_idx_type is defined to be int already.  For
> more than 95% of the builds we are just using a longer word in place of a
> shorter word.

I don't think it will come up often, but why not do the correct thing 
anyway and just declare it as octave_idx_type?  Many functions won't 
even need a declaration for nargin, so it shoudn't cause a lot of trouble.

If the length of octave_idx_type bothers us, then we can change it to 
something else.  Once we have namespaces in place, I think we should 
consider renaming a lot of things that have the "octave_" prefix anyway. 
 I know that will require maintaining some aliasing/typdefs/etc. for a 
while, but we might as well clean up our code if we can.

jwe