[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more comments (issue 13051044)
From: |
janek . lilypond |
Subject: |
Re: more comments (issue 13051044) |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:13:33 +0000 |
https://codereview.appspot.com/13051044/diff/1/flower/include/std-string.hh
File flower/include/std-string.hh (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/13051044/diff/1/flower/include/std-string.hh#newcode40
flower/include/std-string.hh:40: typedef size_t ssize; ///< I believe it
is in some c... header.
On 2013/08/20 10:58:03, fred1995 wrote:
> Indeed, this looks messy. in addition to these two, there's
ssize_t.
> I think that using just size_t is what we should do.
No: ssize_t is the signed version of size_t used for file streams. It
is
important that is remains signed. I looked at it and saw that it is
used because
we use the C FILE for i/o which we shouldn't use in C++. The
equivalent in
standard C++ is streamsize.
ok, i see now. So, ssize_t should remain, but renaming size_t
to ssize doesn't make any sense.
Janek
https://codereview.appspot.com/13051044/
- more comments (issue 13051044), janek . lilypond, 2013/08/20
- Re: more comments (issue 13051044), frederic . bron . 1995, 2013/08/20
- Re: more comments (issue 13051044),
janek . lilypond <=
- Re: more comments (issue 13051044), frederic . bron . 1995, 2013/08/20
- Re: more comments (issue 13051044), frederic . bron . 1995, 2013/08/20
- Re: more comments (issue 13051044), frederic . bron . 1995, 2013/08/20
- Re: more comments (issue 13051044), frederic . bron . 1995, 2013/08/21