> 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
- Replies:
- Re: strings Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- References:
- Re: strings Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: ICALEPCS 2005: EPICS workshop: EPICS V4 Runtime Database Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Next:
Re: [Fwd: Re: ICALEPCS 2005: EPICS workshop: EPICS V4 Runtime Database] Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: strings Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Next:
Re: strings Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|