From: Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:40:46 +0100
Organization: Customer of Planet Online
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <392311DE.3700368D@bigfoot.com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517145742 DOT 626A-100000 AT is> <3922DA9E DOT 8DF00783 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-113.plutonium.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news7.svr.pol.co.uk 958599708 25418 62.136.66.241 (17 May 2000 21:41:48 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 May 2000 21:41:48 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

"Alexei A. Frounze" wrote:
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > You need it for portability.
> >
> > size_t is not equal to int.  Its precise definition depends on the
> > implementation.
[snip]
> I said they equals machine word. I.e. 32-bit on i386+. For sure
> developer can setup them differently... But this way seems to be common.

You seem to be missing the point that you shouldn't rely on size_t and int
being the same size (also: size_t is unsigned, ssize_t is signed).

I don't think the size of size_t is up to each developer - it's up to the
people writing the standard libraries. What happens if they decide to
change the size of size_t to e.g. a larger size? All your code will break.

Bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/