On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:10:30PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Sorry, I'm going down a rabbit hole here. What I REALLY meant to say
> was that it should be signed... i.e. an int or a long, rather then
> unsigned. In the case of sizeof() I have to agree with chris... it
> should be an 'int' if it is small enough to fit, and a 'long' otherwise,
> and overflow values should not be allowed (generate a compile time error)
> or there should be separate keyword, like usizeof(), which returns the
> value as unsigned.
Independent of what we would like or not like to have, the fact that
sizeof() returns a size_t remains and since the argment infosize is provided
by calling sizeof() anyway, it makes the size_t as type natural.
Let's find a different bikeshed please :)
Joerg