From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-12 00:21:15
David Abrahams wrote:
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that we use size_t;
Acually, that's what I would use. I still haven't heard a valid reason
why it shouldn't be used. I'm not saying there isn't one - but
no one has stated one.
> int has the
> same problem, after all. I thought Matthias wass using a
> variable-length representation, but on inspection it looks like he's
> just using a "strong typedef" around std::size_t,
I for one am curious as to the motivation for ths.
>which should work
> adequately for the purposes we're discussing.
well, so would size_t for what has been dicussed so far.
Robert Ramey