Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

[Michael Livshin]

"Jacques A. Vidrine" <address@hidden> writes:

>    1. ``size_t is fine for vector _lengths_, but might not be enough
>       for list and (bit) array _lengths_.'' (emphasis mine).

correct.  oh wait, these are my words. ;)

>    2. ``we are looking precisely for an integer type that has the same
>       width as a pointer''
> 
> These  are  different requirements.   I'm  suggesting  (1) should  use
> uintmax_t, and that (2) should use uintptr_t.  What am I missing?

list length is bounded thusly:
[ 0 : 1 << (sizeof (cell *) * sizeof (char) - sizeof (cell)) ]

i.e. the upper bound is (modulo a little shift) the memory size.  so
why would uintptr_t _not_ be the right type for it?

probably I'm missing something here.

-- 
Nobody can fix the economy.  Nobody can be trusted with their finger on the
button.  Nobody's perfect.  VOTE FOR NOBODY.