Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] rebase-interactive

> Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> writes:
> 
>> I defined that routine to take a uint64_t because I wanted to
>> pass a nanosecond value received from getnanotime() and that's
>> what it returns.
> 
> Hmph, but the target format does not have different representation
> of inttypes in different sizes, no?
> 
> I personally doubt that we would benefit from having a group of
> functions (i.e. format_int{8,16,32,64}_to_json()) that callers have
> to choose from, depending on the exact size of the integer they want
> to serialize.  The de-serializing side would be the same story.
> 
> Even if the variable a potential caller of the formetter is a sized
> type that is different from uintmax_t, the caller shouldn't have to
> add an extra cast.
> 
> Am I missing some obvious merit for having these separate functions
> for explicit sizes?
>