[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preferring ptrdiff_t to size_t for object counts
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: preferring ptrdiff_t to size_t for object counts |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 02:36:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-79-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Hi Paul,
> The name I'm currently
> thinking of is 'in_t', short for "index type". That's an
> easy-to-remember name (the type is like 'int', but possibly wider).
Fine with me.
It doesn't collide: Only very few packages use this identifier 'in_t', and
only in isolated places.
> One other advantage of having our own signed type is that we can
> guarantee that it's at least as wide as int (something that is not true
> for ptrdiff_t). That way, some of my current code that says 'MIN
> (INT_MAX, PTRDIFF_MAX)' can be simplified to the more-natural INT_MAX.
> This is helpful for traditional interfaces that use int counters.
Indeed. (Although portability to Windows 3.1 is not in the focus of gnulib
nor of GNU programs any more.)
Bruno