On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 at 16:29:28 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
On 2012-10-02, 18:09, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 at 13:17:45 UTC, monarch_dodra
wrote:
If you've ever worked on a template that needs to index a
range, you may have run into this problem: What is the type
you should use to index an RA range?
Forgive my ignorance. What's wrong with size_t?
That not all ranges use it? If the range uses int, short, byte
(I wonder why they'd do it, though), using size_t will not even
compile.
That's kind of my point. Unless there's a compelling reason not
to, I'd suggest we standardise on size_t indexing (and length)
and avoid this issue altogether.
C++ containers have a size_type typedef. No one uses it.
Let's keep things simple instead of complicating things for the
sake of unwanted "flexibility".
