Date:	Wed, 17 May 2000 15:02:21 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: C++, complex, etc
In-Reply-To:	<39224964.BBFA67CB@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000517145742.626A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> > > IMHO there must no be any C++ library, just a C++ compiler itself, if people
> > > don't have standard for C++ library.
> > 
> > I don't think this is possible.  All the C++ classes are implemented
> > in a library (libstcxx.a, in the DJGPP case).  You *must* have that
> > library, and you *must* include the appropriate headers, if you want
> > to use data types other than the basic ones (int, char, etc.).
> 
> I can define my own classes instead.

Sure.  And you can define your own complex type as well, assuming that 
you write all the code that implements it.

> So why should I use C++ library, if it's not standartized?

Because it *is* standardized.  The recently-adopted ANSI/ISO C++ Standard
includes the description of a Standard C++ Class Library.

> Btw, what so I need size_t for, if both size_t and
> int equal the same machine word?

You need it for portability.

size_t is not equal to int.  Its precise definition depends on the 
implementation.  For example, a 64-bit machine could use unsigned long 
(64-bit) for size_t.  There are library functions that accept or return
size_t, and if you use int instead, you will get either warnings or bugs.

- Raw text -