home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!wildcan!sq!msb
- From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
- Subject: Re: Idle Questions about ANSI C
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.205652.19542@sq.sq.com>
- Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
- References: <BxqBp1.5M6@netnews.jhuapl.edu> <1992Nov17.123803.6400@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> <1992Nov17.155826.15087@sq.sq.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:56:52 GMT
- Lines: 14
-
- I wrote:
- > A side remark ... [On] this ... pre-ANSI implementation ... size_t
- > is *int*. And in fact sizeof appears to return int also; at least,
- > "sizeof(char) < -1" is false, whereas in ANSI C it's true.
-
- Whoops. I should of course have said that in ANSI C that last statement
- *would* be true if size_t was at least as big as unsigned int. Thanks to
- Jutta Degener for pointing this out in email.
- --
- Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
- "I'm a little worried about the bug-eater," she said. "We're embedded
- in bugs, have you noticed?" -- Niven, "The Integral Trees"
-
- This article is in the public domain.
-