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.
Funny thing is the most important argument against size_t got the least
attention.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.
