Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/05/18/08:43:34
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
>
> > > > So why should I use C++ library, if it's not standartized?
> > >
> > > Because it *is* standardized.
> >
> > Is standard or is <being> standartized?
>
> "Is", not "is being".
So do we already have that standard, right? Where can I find specs and a
compiler that supports it?
>
> > > The recently-adopted ANSI/ISO C++ Standard
> > > includes the description of a Standard C++ Class Library.
> >
> > Okay, what does it state about the complex class
>
> I understand that it tells what the other people said in this thread:
> that you need to use "complex<double>" etc.
You understand. That's good. But does that mean you saw the specs?
> > (what is the date of the standard release)?
>
> I don't know exactly, but it was during the last year.
>
> > > size_t is not equal to int. Its precise definition depends on the
> > > implementation. For example, a 64-bit machine could use unsigned long
> > > (64-bit) for size_t. There are library functions that accept or return
> > > size_t, and if you use int instead, you will get either warnings or bugs.
> >
> > I said they equals machine word.
>
> That's precisely my point: size_t is not necessarily the size of a
> machine word. A portable program cannot assume anything about size_t
> except that it is an unsigned integral type.
I agree it's an internal type.
But _usually_ it equals machine word.
bye.
Alexei A. Frounze
-----------------------------------------
Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
Mirror: http://members.xoom.com/alexfru
- Raw text -