On Monday, February 14, 2011 17:58:17 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.1650.1297733226.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > > On Monday, February 14, 2011 17:06:43 spir wrote: > >> Rename size-t, or rather introduce a meaningful standard alias? (would > >> vote > >> for Natural) > > > > Why? size_t is what's used in C++. It's well known and what lots of > > programmers > > would expect What would you gain by renaming it? > > Although I fully realize how much this sounds like making a big deal out of > nothing, to me, using "size_t" has always felt really clumsy and awkward. I > think it's partly because of using an underscore in such an otherwise short > identifier, and partly because I've been aware of size_t for years and > still don't have the slightest clue WTF that "t" means. Something like > "wordsize" would make a lot more sense and frankly feel much nicer. > > And, of course, there's a lot of well-known things in C++ that D > deliberately destroys. D is a different language, it may as well do things > better.
I believe that t is for type. The same goes for types such as time_t. The size part of the name is probably meant to be short for either word size or pointer size. Personally, I see nothing wrong with size_t and see no reason to change it. If it were a particularly bad name and there was a good suggestion for a replacement, then perhaps I'd support changing it. But I see nothing wrong with size_t at all. - Jonathan M Davis
