Sign in to follow this  

std::size_t compared to size_t

This topic is 4166 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I just started reading C++ Templates: The Complete Guide By David Vandevoorde, Nicolai M. Josuttis In the beginning chapter author says
Quote:
This is not a book about the C++ standard library, but we do make use of that library in some of our examples. In general, we use the C++-specific headers (for example, <iostream> rather than <stdio.h>). The exception is <stddef.h>. We use it instead of <cstddef> and therefore do not qualify size_t and ptrdiff_t with the std:: prefix because this is still more portable and there is no advantage in using std::size_t instead of size_t.
I can't understand why author say that size_t is more portable than std::size_t and why std::size_t is not having any advantage over size_t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by TEUTON
I can't understand why author say that size_t is more portable than std::size_t and why std::size_t is not having any advantage over size_t.

Visual C++ 6.0 did not have a form of size_t in the std namespace, and it was one of the most commonly used compilers in its time. Including <cstddef> and trying to access std::size_t would only result in error. This is no longer true, and you should generally prefer using std::size_t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4166 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this