On 2011-02-15 16:33:33 -0500, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> said:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"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.
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.
I would agree that D is a complete waste of time if all it consisted of
was renaming things.
I'm just wondering whether 'size_t', because it is named after its C
counterpart, doesn't feel too alien in D, causing people to prefer
'uint' or 'ulong' instead even when they should not. We're seeing a lot
of code failing on 64-bit because authors used the fixed-size types
which are more D-like in naming. Wouldn't more D-like names that don't
look like relics from C -- something like 'word' and 'uword' -- have
helped prevent those bugs by making the word-sized type look worth
consideration?
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
