Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:16:24 +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: <3923BA11.AD387617@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000518141411.13603C-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:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 18 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't use size_t in my sources.
> > 
> > You cannot do that if those sources call standard functions which accept
> > or return size_t values, such as strlen, memcpy, malloc, etc.  If you use
> > int instead of size_t in these cases, your code becomes non-portable.
> 
> Really? How about type casting? It doesn't work at all for int<->size_t?

Casting doesn't solve such problems, it only prevents the compiler from 
complaining.  For example, if size_t is unsigned int, then casting it to 
int will not avoid problems from comparing signed and unsigned values.

> If it's a standard type, what is it needed for then? Isn't int enough?

No, it isn't enough.  If it were enough, the ANSI comittee would not have 
invented it.