Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:30:33 +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: <3922E117.561584EE@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000518113013.12245H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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

> I simply flame because C++ library implementations are different in
> different compilers.

Welcome to C++.  If you don't like languages that are not standardized
enough, don't use C++, at least not just yet.

> > > Btw, what so I need size_t for, if both size_t and
> > > int equal the same machine word?
> > 
> > *If*. But how on earth is a program supposed to know if that condition
> > holds, on the compiler it's being put through?
> 
> I don't understand your phrase. Please tell it in other words, if possible.

You said "if both size_t and int equal the same machine word".
Hans-Bernhard is telling you that that's a big ``if'', and a portable
program cannot rely on that fact, or even verify it reliably.