[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: size_t & unsigned long
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: size_t & unsigned long |
Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 17:14:46 +0200 (MEST) |
On 11 May 2001, Michael Livshin wrote:
>
> the current Guile code assumes that the two types `size_t' and
> `unsigned long' are interchangeable.
>
> since I don't, by any stretch, have the ANSI C standard handy, I have
> a couple of questions:
>
> 1) is the above assumption ANSI-compliant?
>
> 2) if it is not, do we care?
I'd say, yes. IMO, we should at least _try_ to be type safe, and also
use the most restrictive possible types, like prefering unsigned types for
values that can't be negative.
Another point: We have a type scm_sizet (which, IMO, should better be
renamed to scm_size_t whenver we fell masochist enough for such a change),
the purpose of which does not seem to be too clearly defined. In which
situations should we use this type? What is the difference to size_t?
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann