"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1657.1297736740.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > 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. >
If the "t" means "type", then "size_t" puts "what the symbol is" into the name of the symbol. Even if that *technically* isn't hungarian notation, it's the same basic principle. Aside from that, what's the point of putting "type" in the name of a type? We don't say int_t, float_t, object_t, Widget_t, etc. That'd be stupid. They just simply *are* types. How about making a statement that has "_s" tacked on to the end of its name to specify that it's a statement? "foreach_s", "if_s". It's pointless. If "size" isn't a good name for the type (and it isn't), then the solution is to find a better name, not to tack a "_t" to the end of it. C/C++ has a lot of stupid stuff that C/C++ programmers are used to. Doesn't mean D should copy it.
