Hi, On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:16 PM, q6Yr7e0o nIJDVMjC <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I like the idea but defining SIZE_UNLIMITED as -1 and comparing a > size_t to it doesn't seem right somehow. Wouldn't it be better do > define SIZE_UNLIMITED to 0 which is a valid size_t value and does not > make sense for the limits so it can be used as magic number? I see no reason why it can't be -1 (well, the best way here is to define SIZE_UNLIMITED as ((size_t) -1) ). Btw, setting the 'unlimited' constant to 0 is definitely wrong solution. -- WBR, Constantine
