Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

"Jeff Hill" <[email protected]> · Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:57:46 -0600

> I assume you must still account for the unlikely possibility
> that it's signed, so you always check
>      if (xx < 0  ||  xx >= length)

Considering how discussions went at Big Ed's I probably shouldn't mention
this, but The ANSI C standard defines size_t to be the unsigned integral
type that is the result of the sizeof() operator.

> Well, it's only 11:00 and now I get this urge for oil dripping
> pepperoni pizza.

I don't think that an accessor class exists - therefore my waist line will
publicly inherit from the pepperoni pizza base class. Nevertheless, the
dinner class doesn't taste good if it doesn't multiply derive from pizza and
IPA... 

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay-Uwe Kasemir [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:07 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: strings
> 
> 
> On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:13 , Andrew Johnson wrote:
> > I am not providing cast operators, and to some extent I agree about
> > the difficulty reading code that uses them.  However the assignment
> > operator= is an integral part of C++ that the compiler will create
> > for you (usually wrongly) if you don't explicitly tell it not to.
> .. right, which makes it more of a C--
> 
> > class StringReader {
> > ...
> >     // Individual byte access
> >     virtual char at(size_t pos) const = 0;
> Yes, that looks good to me.
> 
> At one point in time, actually the Oak Ridge EPICS meeting,
> we were gathered at Big Ed's Pizza, a place that I have not
> visited ever since, but not because of any bad feelings,
> there simply never was an opportunity for it.
> Anyway, we discussed some EPICS 'OSI' ideas. One issue
> was signed vs. unsigned for index variables and sizes.
> I was asked what I used at the time in the archiver code,
> and mentioned size_t, and the result was grave concern
> because who knows how big size_t is, if it's signed or not, ...
> So is it now OK to use size_t?
> I assume you must still account for the unlikely possibility
> that it's signed, so you always check
>      if (xx < 0  ||  xx >= length)
> and then you get the warning about x always being positive
> on most compilers?
> Well, it's only 11:00 and now I get this urge for oil dripping
> pepperoni pizza.
> 
> -Kay

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System