Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:16:01 +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: <3923BD31.D1033050@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000518181310.15189K-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 Thu, 18 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> If so, why there is no backward
> compatibility with "complex"? Is it hard to add one extra "#define" or
> "typedef"?

Sometimes, backward compatibility cannot be kept because it conflicts 
with the new syntax or new features.  I don't know if this is the case 
here, but I do know that compatibility is important and is kept whenever 
possible.

> > I wanted to point out that you were making a totally unjustified
> > assumption.  You say you don't need size_t, if size_t and int are
> > effectively the same thing. The 'if' in that sentence is the crucial
> > part: this 'if' cannot be tested by the program.
> 
> sizeof() :)

sizeof doesn't help here: it cannot tell whether size_t is signed or 
unsigned.