Daniel Gibson: > Not necessary (at least for these problems), people just have to use size_t > instead of (u)int for indexes and such more consequently ;)
Elsewhere I have suggested to turn uint and size_t into two different types (like with a typedef): http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5063 But Walter has answered me: > Code that compiles on 32 bits but fails to compile on 64 bits with an > appropriate message is not much of a problem. Making size_t its own type > rather > than an alias brings along a whole host of other problems. > > Besides, it is perfectly legitimate to use an int to index an array on 64 > bits. So a simple type system solution is not enough. I don't know what better solutions there are. Bye, bearophile
