Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #387637
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: size_t best practice |
| Date | 2024-08-18 15:40 +0300 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20240818154013.00002ed7@yahoo.com> (permalink) |
| References | <VdCcne2MOeshN1z7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <operator-20240818131412@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
On 18 Aug 2024 12:17:36 GMT
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> wrote or quoted:
> >So is it considered best practice to use int, long, long long, or
> >size_t, in situations like these?
>
> In *cough*C++*cough* you could whip up a "SafeSize" class with
> a bulletproof "operator--", so you don't space on the check.
> You could still keep cranking out your code in what's basically C
> and just cherry-pick this one gnarly feature from that other language.
>
> SafeSize& operator--()
> { if( value == 0 )
> { throw std::underflow_error("SafeSize decrement underflow"); }
> --value;
> return *this; }
But that's not a desired behavior for people that want to write
downcounting for() loops in intuitive manner.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
size_t best practice Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-18 08:03 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2024-08-18 08:38 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-18 10:15 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 07:38 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-18 12:36 +0300
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 04:32 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-18 15:40 +0300
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 15:23 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-19 11:13 +0300
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-19 09:43 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 14:57 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 06:53 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 06:55 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 06:56 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-22 01:38 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-22 01:31 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2024-08-22 11:19 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-22 06:12 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-24 19:49 +0200
Re: size_t best practice Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2024-08-25 06:30 +0200
Re: size_t best practice Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 06:53 +0200
Re: size_t best practice Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:39 +0100
Re: size_t best practice Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 18:11 +0200
csiph-web