+ /*
+ So why do we have all these overloaded operator[]s? A bit of history:
+ initially there was only one of them, taking size_t. Then people
+ started complaining because they wanted to use ints as indices (I
+ wonder why) and compilers were giving warnings about it, so we had to
+ add the operator[](int). Then it became apparent that you couldn't
+ write str[0] any longer because there was ambiguity between two
+ overloads and so you now had to write str[0u] (or, of course, use the
+ explicit casts to either int or size_t but nobody did this).
+
+ Finally, someone decided to compile wxWin on an Alpha machine and got
+ a surprize: str[0u] didn't compile there because it is of type
+ unsigned int and size_t is unsigned _long_ on Alpha and so there was
+ ambiguity between converting uint to int or ulong. To fix this one we
+ now add operator[](uint) for the machines where size_t is not already
+ the same as unsigned int - hopefully this fixes the problem (for some
+ time)
+
+ The only real fix is, of course, to remove all versions but the one
+ taking size_t...
+ */
+