Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why should "sizeof" be unsigned?
Message-ID: <6001@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 19-Jun-87 02:54:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6001
Posted: Fri Jun 19 02:54:36 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jun-87 02:47:20 EDT
References: <1748@plus5.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Distribution: world
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <1748@plus5.UUCP> hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) writes:
>None of these issues are key - it seems to me having sizeof return an
>explicitly unsigned value violates "the principle of least astonishment".

(a) AT&T "sizeof" has been this way for many years now.
(b) Since sizeof(thing) inherently cannot be negative, an unsigned
integer value for the sizeof operator seems exactly right.
(c) Your example wasn't very convincing (to me at least).