Re: Very briefly, size_t versus ptrdiff_t on 64-bit systems

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great sur-behoffski once stated:
> Sorry for semi-carrying on the [unsigned] int conversation, but a quick
> note from some activity I saw on another very comprehensive list regarding
> a utility, coded in C, and aiming for very high portability:
> 
> (These remarks only apply to systems with 64 (or more) bits for pointers.)
> 
> The maintainers on that project decided to use signed type ptrdiff_t,
> instead of unsigned size_t, as the gain in being able to comprehend
> over/underflow for the entities being manipulated was more valuable
> than the likely (sane real-world use for the ultra-foreseeable future)
> loss of one bit of integer precision.

  Is there a link to the archive of the thread?  I, for one, would like to
read the context and rational for their decision.

  -spc