size_t, more info

[Sylvain Bougerel]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Paul Harris <paulharris at computer.org> wrote:
> one thing to consider...
>
> kdtree has used "size_t" since 0.6.2 and before... why start using std::
> when noone has complained about any problems with it?
>
> maybe std::size_t was required for very old compilers that had crap template
> support anyway?
>

Also true. It can also remain size_t just simply. I'm fine with it anyway :)