Index: libcfa/src/collections/array.hfa
===================================================================
--- libcfa/src/collections/array.hfa	(revision 00aa122cd8a610fd71bc1afaa8e4910742e18a62)
+++ libcfa/src/collections/array.hfa	(revision 0210a5430783b59134de79dc37baf30ed9ebe666)
@@ -69,12 +69,10 @@
 	//    types like size_t.  So trying to overload on ptrdiff_t vs int works in 64-bit mode
 	//    but not in 32-bit mode.
-	// -  Given bug of Trac #247, CFA gives sizeof expressions type unsigned long int, when it
-	//    should give them type size_t.
-	//
-	//                          gcc -m32         cfa -m32 given bug         gcc -m64 (and cfa)
-	// ptrdiff_t                int              int                        long int
-	// size_t                   unsigned int     unsigned int               unsigned long int
-	// typeof( sizeof(42) )     unsigned int     unsigned long int          unsigned long int
-	// int                      int              int                        int
+	//
+	//                          cfa -m32 (and gcc)      cfa -m64 (and gcc)
+	// ptrdiff_t                int                     long int
+	// size_t                   unsigned int            unsigned long int
+	// typeof( sizeof(42) )     unsigned int            unsigned long int
+	// int                      int                     int
 	//
 	// So the solution must support types {zero_t, one_t, int, unsigned int, long int, unsigned long int}
@@ -83,7 +81,8 @@
 	// because assertion satisfaction requires types to match exacly.  Both higher-dimensional
 	// subscripting and operations on slices use asserted subscript operators.  The test case
-	// array-container/array-sbscr-cases covers the combinations.  Mike beleives that commenting out
+	// array-collections/array-sbscr-types covers the combinations.  Mike beleives that commenting out
 	// any of the current overloads leads to one of those cases failing, either on 64- or 32-bit.
 	// Mike is open to being shown a smaller set of overloads that still passes the test.
+
 
 	static inline Timmed & ?[?]( arpk( N, S, Timmed, Tbase ) & a, zero_t ) {
