Am 15.02.2011 22:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: > "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message > news:ijeil4$2aso$3...@digitalmars.com... >> spir wrote: >>> Having to constantly explain that "_t" means type, that "size" does not >>> mean size, what this type is supposed to mean instead, what it is used >>> for in core and stdlib functionality, and what programmers are supposed >>> to use it for... isn't this a waste of our time? This, only because the >>> name is mindless? >> >> No, because there is a vast body of work that uses size_t and a vast body >> of programmers who know what it is and are totally used to it. >> > > And there's a vast body who don't. >
They've got to learn some name for it anyway, so why not size_t? This also makes using C functions that use size_t easier/more clear. > And there's a vast body who are used to C++, so let's just abandon D and > make it an implementation of C++ instead. >