On Monday, February 14, 2011 18:19:35 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.1655.1297736016.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > > 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. > > So it's (modified) hungarian notation? Didn't that go out with boy bands, > Matrix spoofs and dancing CG babies?
How is it hungarian notation? Hungarian notation puts the type of the variable in the name. size_t _is_ the type. I don't see any relation to hungarian notation. And I'm pretty sure that size_t predates the invention of hungarian notation by a fair margin anyway. - Jonathan M Davis
