Now I'm confused. :-) -----Original Message----- From: James Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 10:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Need for XMLSize_t?
Hi Matt, On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Alright, if we have found a reason to keep XMLSize_t, as it appears > that we > have due to the behavior of the Windows libraries, then I would > propose the > opposite solution. Eliminate direct references to regular size_t so > that > there is only one kind of size_t in the code. > > Comments? Per my previous mail, I think the only reason to keep XMLSize_t is to ensure source compatibility. That's not a bad reason. But I don't think there's any reason to further perpetuate it. If XMLSize_t is not the same as size_t for a given platform/ architecture, I'd claim that's a bug that should be fixed. -jdb --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
