Specifically running out of this thread, but also from this one.  I recommend changing the xWORD notations on BnetDocs, and stating so.  A lot of people are being brainwashed into learning the wrong definitions of fundamental binary protocol terms (WORD, DWORD, etc..)

It'll be a big leap, but change is good :)

Perhaps to U8, U16, U32, U64 and Sxx as appropriate for unsigned/signed?

That's the kind of initiative we need :)

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12158.msg119960#msg119960 date=1120971663]
That's the kind of initiative we need :)
[/quote]

I don't mind going through all the pages and doing that (I have LOTS of free time at work), as long as the other editors are okay with it.

I'm not sure about that. I'd say that the current notation is a fairly established convention. How many people are confused by it?

It's not so much confusing as just plain wrong.  The way everything is listed now assumes that all bots are made on 16-bit platforms, and then this just gives the wrong definitions.

In essence, changing the notations to match what actually needs to be done would be fixing an assload of typos.

Well, if we're going for clarity here, I'd say changing it to what is "right" would actually confuse people even more. Keeping it simple *nearly* guarantees that we're preserving BnetDocs's goal.

I agree with Arta & LK, it's a standard and changing it to anything else would only cause additional confusion.

The people who be affected the most would probably not know the difference anyway, or only be copying code.  If it was changed to be correct, anyone who knew what was going on could adapt easily.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=12158.msg120009#msg120009 date=1121009144]
It's not so much confusing as just plain wrong.  The way everything is listed now assumes that all bots are made on 16-bit platforms
[/quote]
Not necessarily.  I've been told that a word is 16 bits on any platforms (ref: college assembly class), and that the order is this: bit (1 bit), nibble (4 bits), byte (8 bits), word (16 bits), double word (32 bits), quad word (64 bits).  Those are the conventions that I've always assumed (correctly) were in place on BnetDocs.

Og course, if/when we switch to XML, we can display the types according to the preference of the user :)

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12158.msg120077#msg120077 date=1121041222]
Og course, if/when we switch to XML, we can display the types according to the preference of the user :)
[/quote]

Og Arta says, Og.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12158.msg120077#msg120077 date=1121041222]
Og course, if/when we switch to XML, we can display the types according to the preference of the user :)
[/quote]
*votes for this format*
I know that It's annoying to have the wrong deffinition of a word. It makes you look like a retard when your talking to someone who does know it. But considering BnetDocs has This We are good for now. But wait untill it uses XML. That would be a good feature.
~-~(HDX)~-~

Wrong definition?

I Should say Incompleet insted.
~-~(HDX)~-~

Incomplete how?

[quote]A word is the standard unit on a machine.  A word on a 16-bit machine is 2 bytes, on a 32-bit machine it's 4 bytes, and on a 64-bit machine it's 8 bytes.[/quote]
We only get the bolded parts:
[quote]WORD  A 16-bit unsigned little-endian integer.[/quote]
It tells nothing about the type of machine affecting it's size.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[quote author=HdxBmx27 link=topic=12158.msg120256#msg120256 date=1121120078]
It tells nothing about the type of machine affecting it's size.
[/quote]
Like I said, though, it depends on whom you ask.  My college prof would have told you that a word is 16 bits, period.  Interestingly, in 32-bit MASM, a WORD is still a 16-bit integer:
[url]http://crystal.uta.edu/~vasudeva/teaching/cse2312_summer05/lectures/lecture7/notes.html#L9_B31[/url].
I have to wonder that if a WORD wasn't a 16-bit value, how would an assembler define a 16-bit value?  The mneumonic is "dw", for "define word".  To define a 32-bit value, it's "dd", for "define doubleword".  Etcetera.
Other links:
[url]http://cs.wwc.edu/~aabyan/Unix/x86.html[/url] (do a search for "dw" to find it).
[url]http://www.cs.uwc.ac.za/~iventer/Courses/cos365/AssemblyTheory/Assem40Lang.htm[/url]

It sounds to me like all of this can be solved by allowing preference.

Anyways, Kp backs me up unwittingly, but yes, I say go with XML so people can have what they want :)