Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work1) now available

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Roberto Ierusalimschy once stated:
> > Just so I understand, what was the rationale for choosing 64 over 32 as the integer size?
> 
> We have just discussed this subject today, a few hours ago. Check
> the list.  (The main rationale for having integers is to allow 64-bit
> integers; you will not have 64-bit integers with a 32-bit integer size.)

  As a thought---I know it's not C89, but what about changing the default
Lua numeric type to "long double" for those that need 64-bit integers?  I
checked my 32-bit system and it reports back "12" for sizeof(long double),
and in the 64-bit system, it reports back '16'.  To me, that seems like both
would be large enough to support true 64-bit integers.

  -spc (That way, not much has to change internally ... )