Steven Schveighoffer Wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:26:21 -0500, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 02/15/2011 02:36 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > > >> > >> Hey, bikeshedders, I found this cool easter-egg feature in D! It's > >> called > >> alias! Don't like the name of something? Well you can change it! > >> > >> alias size_t wordsize; > >> > >> Now, you can use wordsize instead of size_t in your code, and the > >> compiler > >> doesn't care! (in fact, that's all size_t is anyways *hint hint*) > > > > Sure, but it's not the point of this one bikeshedding thread. If you do > > that, then you're the only one who knows what "wordsize" means. Good, > > maybe, for app-specific semantic notions (alias Employee[] Staff;); > > certainly not for types at the highest degree of general purpose like > > size_t. We need a standard alias. > > The standard alias is size_t. If you don't like it, alias it to something > else. Why should I have to use something that's unfamiliar to me because > you don't like size_t? > > I guarantee whatever you came up with would not be liked by some people, > so they would have to alias it, you can't please everyone. size_t works, > it has a precedent, it's already *there*, just use it, or alias it if you > don't like it. > > No offense, but this discussion is among the most pointless I've seen. > > -Steve
I disagree that the discussion is pointless. On the contrary, the OP pointed out some valid points: 1. that size_t is inconsistent with D's style guide. the "_t" suffix is a C++ convention and not a D one. While it makes sense for [former?] C++ programmers it will confuse newcomers to D from other languages that would expect the language to follow its own style guide. 2. the proposed change is backwards compatible - the OP asked for an *additional* alias. 3. generic concepts should belong to the standard library and not user code which is also where size_t is already defined. IMO, we already have a byte type, it's plain common sense to extend this with a "native word" type.
