> > Yes, I'm aware of what size_t and ptrdiff_t are, but that's not my > > real > > concern. I'm worried we are removing an existing typedef that > > users might > > have in their code, which means they will face modifying their > > code. Also, > > we might be changing the semantics of our code and their code without > > understanding the consequences. > > Yes, removing a typedef that will force changes in code is a valid > concern. I guess we have to weight that against the fact that we're > continuing to perpetuate an additional type, for which a standard > type already exists, and which may cause a need for additional casts, > etc, in using our code.
I always hate doing something that breaks source-code compatibility, especially with a typedef. > As far as the semantics thing goes, I don't think there's a problem > as far as sizing, but I could be wrong ;) >From what I see on Windows, at least, XMLSize_t ends up being a typedef for unsigned long, rather than size_t, and that's why I was concerned. Thanks! Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
