Message-ID: <3923B90D.22A6AEBC@mtu-net.ru> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:34:05 +0400 From: "Alexei A. Frounze" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: ru,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Recipient: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > 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 standartized? > > "Is", not "is being". So do we already have that standard, right? Where can I find specs and a compiler that supports it? > > > > 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" etc. You understand. That's good. But does that mean you saw the specs? > > (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. I agree it's an internal type. But _usually_ it equals machine word. bye. Alexei A. Frounze ----------------------------------------- Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru Mirror: http://members.xoom.com/alexfru