Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes: > Hi Simon, > >> I'm not sure I understand why idx_t is better than size_t >> here, can you elaborate? Why not ssize_t? > > You find a detailed explanation in the comments of idx.h.
Thanks for the pointer -- it doesn't say anything about why ssize_t can't be used though? As a signed variant of size_t, it seems relevant to consider. >> Maybe a compromise is to >> keep the old API but add new APIs with idx_t types and the >> implementation of the old functions uses the new one. > > The objective is to eliminate bugs due to the use of unsigned types > for numerical values. Is that a realistic goal with C using the unsigned type size_t for low-level functions like strlen()? It seems like an un-idiomatic goal. > We can achieve it only by increasing the use of signed types such as > 'idx_t'. If we keep the old function, it needs to be marked with > __attribute__ ((__deprecated__)), otherwise existing code will > continue to use the old function forever. My idea was that both APIs would be supported indefinitely. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
