Re: pointer to integer to pointer conversions

"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> "Richard Bos" <rlb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:48216449.1643908201@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> BTW, I still don't understand why we have both intptr_t and uintptr_t.
>> We really only need either of those.
>
[...]
>
> More practically speaking, I bet both exist simply because it's
> symmetric and doesn't hurt.  It also stops people from typing
> "unsigned intptr_t" if that's what they want...

There's also the fact that you can't legally apply "unsigned" to a
typedef.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <kst-u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"