On 4/7/21 4:00 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
That's why I am wondering whether it makes sense to have an xsize module that uses idx_t instead of size_t.
It might, yes. I use intprops.h for this sort of thing, but perhaps a stripped-down header would be appropriate.
I am planning to make xalloc.h use idx_t rather than size_t for object and byte counts, as we really should be using signed integers there, for all the usual reasons. So in some sense I want xsize's current API to be obsolete.
assure (i < n); assure (0 <= i);
I suggest writing 'assure (0 <= i && i < n);' as it's easier to read, at least for me. Better yet, use 'affirm' rather than 'assure' as this helps the compiler generate better code.
