size_t vs. unsigned long

[Karl Berry]

    > +  long len;
    > Is using long instead of size_t going to cause dumb declaration
    > conflicts?

    Again, it's a taste issue. 

Well, as you probably know, there is no guarantee that C size_t is the
same as unsigned long, so in principle it's not just a matter of taste.
Though admittedly in practice it is, as far as I know (except on
Windows, I guess), and for compatibility reasons, I hope that never
changes.  But who knows.

    which meant that subtractions involving it always came out as
    positive, which leads me to worry about when I see it. 

It seems correct to me that size_t is unsigned.  A size (or address for
that matter) is an unsigned number after all.

Anyway, I doubt either of us want to spend time debating the theory of
size_t and similar.  To me, the most important factor is that the
existing Info code uses size_t, so new code should too.  Just like any
other coding convention.

thanks,
karl

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of size_t.  They've caused me a lot
of trouble with useless declaration conflicts.  But I've seen most of
the code I originally wrote using [unsigned] long, before size_t
existed, have to be converted to using size_t for one reason or another.
So I think it's a losing battle.