On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 13:49:30 +0000 Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 08:46:49 UTC, bearophile wrote: > > Freddy: > > > >> Why not keep size_t implictly convertable but disallow it for > >> usize. > > > > This is an interesting idea. (But the name "uword" seems > > better). > > The char, wchar (word char) and dchar (double word char) types > seem to disagree. The "word=2bytes" historical rule is rooted > too deeply. An "uword" will also be very confusing alongside > lower level code (e.g. assembler). > > Personally, when I face the need for a size_t, I usually can (and > do) use auto instead. And even if I have to spell it, I don't > care too much how it's called, only whether it can be easily > recognized. i bet that "woobooAAARGH" will be even easier to recognize than "size_t". as there is no other types in D with "_t" suffix, you have to remember that anyway, so it doesn't really matter which one to remember. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
