Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!mirror!rayssd!jarsun1!drd!d.cs.okstate.edu!minich
From: minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: sizeof() (was: Re: Think C or MPW?)
Message-ID: <1990Sep10.005509.25965@d.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 90 00:55:09 GMT
References: <9133@potomac.ads.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Lines: 17

by adiseker@potomac.ads.com (Andrew Diseker):
> 	I've seen people mention that they don't like the fact that sizeof()
> returns int instead of size_t.  Well, people, Symantec supplies all the source
> and include files for every macro and library function in their ANSI library!
> There's nothing preventing you from changing and/or re-implementing anything
> that you don't like!  

  But where (how) does one define sizeof()??? Isn't that part of the
compiler itself? I agree that having library sources is valuable and I
have made use of this feature before but the sizeof() problem is just
plain stupid. I don't know anything context where sizeof() is commonly
used that doesn't require a size_t argument.
-- 
|_    /| | Robert Minich            |
|\'o.O'  | Oklahoma State University| There are no heroes --
|=(___)= | minich@a.cs.okstate.edu  |   We all wear gray hats.
|   U    | - Ackphtth               |