<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 1, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Aaron Ballman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aaron@aaronballman.com" target="_blank" class="cremed">aaron@aaronballman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Then wouldn't it make sense for our APIs (at least the ones STL-ish)<br>
to use size_type in case someone wants to vary it?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="">It makes sense for an *algorithm* to use size_type of a data structure it operates on in the event the data structure overrides it.</div>
<div style=""><br></div><div style="">It makes sense for a data structure to use 'size_t' because its simpler.</div><div style=""><br></div><div style="">It makes sense for a data structure to typedef 'size_t' to 'size_type' to tell algorithms that it has elected to use that definition.</div>
<div> </div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Yep, what Chandler said. There is no reasonable way to vary it in StringRef, so the abstraction would just obfuscate the code.</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><br></body></html>