Hi,
On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
>>> Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
>>> >> conventions explicitly?
>> > What about `size_t`?
> +1 for size_t
Well, any convention would need careful wording.
```
for (uint32_t timeout = 1; timeout < (10LU*1000*1000); timeout *= 2) {
if(try()) break;
}
```
... cannot blindly by convention converted to size_t as loop variable.
IMHO this example also answers Oleg's initial concern: sometimes int or
unsigned int or size_t just don't work.
Kaspar
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
