Openzeppelin-contracts: change all occurrences of uint for uint256

[maraoz]

It's better to be explicit about types

[morrme]

i can help with this.

[maraoz]

@morrme nice, thanks!

[morrme]

@maraoz would you like the docstrings and other references changed as well, or just the declarations?

[maraoz]

Please change the docstrings too :)

[morrme]

this should be done by tomorrow--crazy week!

[rstormsf]

@maraoz https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/zeppelin-solidity/pull/269 here we go

[maraoz]

Reopening because @spalladino just found that PausableToken still has some references to uint instead of uint256 (blame: @maraoz)

[maraoz]

See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/zeppelin-solidity/blob/master/contracts/token/PausableToken.sol#L14

[BrianGuo]

@maraoz Just fixed this issue within my fork. I also changed uint to uint256 in most of the test files; if this isn't desired, i'll change it back promptly

[flockonus]

Hi guys, considering many ppl look up to OpenZeppelin contracts as reference, could you please list what are the tradeoffs to using uint256 versus uint?

Also appreciated details to Struct, arrays and tight packing features.

[frangio]

Good suggestion @flockonus.

We think it's safest to be 100% explicit about types. Although uint is an alias for uint256, it makes the size implicit, for the only benefit of having a few characters less. There really isn't more to it than that. 🙂

They are aliases so they work exactly the same.

What is the question about structs and arrays?

[flockonus]

Your answer solves my question.

My other concerns are related to optimizing cost of storage, but i'll put it together in a separate question and drop by your Slack channel, thank you!

[rolandkofler]

The litmus test: would you file a issue for solidity to deprecate uint?