Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types

Sawyer X wrote:
> On 06/17/2016 05:28 PM, Father Chrysostomos wrote:
> > Dave Mitchell:
> >> My current preference is that core standardises on Size_t and SSize_t,
> >> and eliminates usage of size_t, ssize_t, STRLEN and MEM_SIZE.
> > I have always liked STRLEN and MEM_SIZE, because the make the code more
> > self-documenting.
> >
> > There!  You never have consensus on anything.
>                                        
> I think the question is: Would you object to standardizing on Size_t and
> SSize_t, despite preferring to use STRLEN and MEM_SIZE?

I suppose not.  I am just used to seeing the code written a cer-
tain way. :-)

• Inconsistencies in memory size types by ilmari
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Dave Mitchell
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Andy Dougherty
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by ilmari
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by H.Merijn Brand
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Dave Mitchell
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Father Chrysostomos
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Sawyer X
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Father Chrysostomos
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Father Chrysostomos
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by ilmari
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Josh Juran
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Aristotle Pagaltzis
• Re: Inconsistencies in memory size types by Andy Dougherty