Re: SPI bug.

Neil Conway wrote:
> As I said before, we may or may not want to change
> the executor itself to use a constant-sized type, but as a matter of 
> interface definition, I think using "long" makes the most sense.
> 
One thing that I forgot. If you indeed will do something like that in 
the future, the implication is yet another change to the SPI interfaces. 
Why not decide, once and for all and right now, what the size of this 
integer should be and then *start* with a change of the interface. The 
change of the underlying implementation can come later. Now you 
effectively force a second change that will make things incompatible 
should you decide to change the executor in the future.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren