Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:29:54 +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: <3922DA9E.8DF00783@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000518112923.12245G-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:

> > > So why should I use C++ library, if it's not standartized?
> > 
> > Because it *is* standardized.  
> 
> Is standard or is <being> standartized?

"Is", not "is being".

> > The recently-adopted ANSI/ISO C++ Standard
> > includes the description of a Standard C++ Class Library.
> 
> Okay, what does it state about the complex class

I understand that it tells what the other people said in this thread:
that you need to use "complex<double>" etc.

> (what is the date of the standard release)?

I don't know exactly, but it was during the last year.

> > 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.
> 
> I said they equals machine word.

That's precisely my point: size_t is not necessarily the size of a
machine word.  A portable program cannot assume anything about size_t
except that it is an unsigned integral type.