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'sbut > "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 ?-)