Geoff Clare wrote:
The code was just to illustrate the point that if it is possible for the condition (var > SSIZE_MAX) to be true then the implementation does not conform to the requirement that SSIZE_MAX is the maximum value of an object of type ssize_t.
I still don't buy that. If that was the intended meaning then I would expect the standard to read "...maximum value of a ssize_t" or "maximum value of *type* ssize_t". It doesn't. It uses the word "object" in this one, and ONLY one, instance. If this was *not* done to create a distinction between representable and permissible values, then why *was* it done?
-- Matthew This is not the list you're looking for. -- Perversion of Obi Wan
