Re: C89, size_t, and long

Yevgen Muntyan <muntyan.removethis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:
Yevgen Muntyan <muntyan.removethis@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

But how is casting size_t to unsigned long more legitimate than

int process_some_data (char *data, unsigned long len);

In this case, you could easily make len a size_t instead.

*If* I can change the code.

If _you_ can't change the code, I would advise not to worry about
whether the ideas expressed in it are legitimate or not; leave that to
the people who did design and do maintain it.

By the way, it seems that some people avoid #includ'ing headers like
stddef.h in library headers due to bugs in C implementations
or for some other obscure reasons. I'd think it adds to this
issue: you can use long for free, it's builtin, but to get
size_t you need an extra header.

Given that size_t is also #defined in <stdio.h>, <stdlib.h> and
<string.h>, probably the three most #included headers, without which I
can hardly imagine a useful ISO C program of any reasonable size, as
well as in <time.h> and <wchar.h>, IMO people who do this should do a
reality check.

Richard
.