Message-ID: <3923CEAD.CCF814CF@mtu-net.ru> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:06:21 +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 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. Like fpos_t which depends on file system? bye. Alexei A. Frounze ----------------------------------------- Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru Mirror: http://members.xoom.com/alexfru