That is very sensible. Guess this could be put on the shelf for now
until then.

On 01.07.2025 21:08, Jan Schultke wrote:
> Defining those aliases now may be a terrible idea because _BitInt (I'm
> working on bringing it to C++) may be a genuine revamp of the integer
> type system.
>
> The existing fixed-width aliases have all the terrible implicit
> conversions, integer promotions, weird overload behavior etc. that you
> would expect, and so I would prefer not to perpetuate them. On some
> platforms supported by GCC, int8_t is an alias for char (not even
> signed char).
>
> Maybe once _BitInt arrives (presumably C++29), we could think about
> defining some shorthands for specific widths, like
>
>> using u8 = bit_uint_t<8>;
> Given the verbosity of bit_uint_t<8> (or bit_uint<8>), there could be
> a good argument that if you use these types basically everywhere, you
> want standard shorthands. For std::u8 vs. std::uint8_t, it's a hard
> sell.
>
> Anyhow, big things are happening in this area.
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 at 18:24, Radu Ungureanu via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Aliasing stdint types like uint16_t to shorter names like u16 has become
>> a very common practice. This trend has influenced other modern languages
>> like Rust, Zig, Cpp2, Carbon and Odin to adopt this. On GitHub, u8 alone
>> has lead to the same ~6k lines of code (counted with
>> https://github.com/search?q=%22typedef+uint8_t+u8%22+language%3AC%2B%2B++NOT+is%3Afork&type=code
>> and
>> https://github.com/search?q=%22using+u8+%3D%22+language%3AC%2B%2B++NOT+is%3Afork&type=code).
>> These names (int*_t) while precise, are quite verbose and cumbersome to
>> use, especially in codebases where dealing with low-level code is the
>> norm such as binary loaders or networking tools.
>>
>> I propose the following to be included in <cstdint>, a approach which
>> has been inspired by std::literals:
>>
>> namespace std {
>> namespace ints {
>> using i8 = int8_t;
>> using u8 = uint8_t;
>> using i16 = int16_t;
>> using u16 = uint16_t;
>> using i32 = int32_t;
>> using u32 = uint32_t;
>> using i64 = int64_t;
>> using u64 = uint64_t;
>> using iN = intN_t;
>> using uN = uintN_t;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> The typical usage of this would be as follows:
>>
>> using namespace std::ints;
>> struct SomeFileFormatHeader {
>> u16 magic;
>> u32 checksum;
>> u32 num_entries;
>> // etc...
>> }
>>
>> I have considered putting those in the same namespace as int*_t but that
>> would break existing code that already defines those types using the
>> help of stdint.
>>
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals