Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!rbutterworth
From: rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: size_t (was: A lint question)
Message-ID: <22515@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 1 Dec 88 17:50:26 GMT
References: <1256@vsedev.VSE.COM> <766@quintus.UUCP> <14750@mimsy.UUCP> <777@quintus.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 15

In article <777@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> Since one of the differences between BSD and SysV is that
> read() and write() take "unsigned" length parameters in SysV but "int"
> ones in BSD, while size_t is "unsigned int" in V.3's  but
> "int" in 4.2's , I assumed that it was the size_t of the
> dpANS.  I'm sorry to hear that this was just good luck.  What *is*
> the size_t in  for, then?

The tahoe BSD defines size_t as (long) instead of (int) as in 4.2.
This is a big improvement?

P.S. I see that the "NULL == (char*)0" fallacy is starting up again.
     As long as we are getting rid of gets(), perhaps it is time to
     get rid of NULL too ?-)