Am 15.02.2011 23:00, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: > "so" <s...@so.so> wrote in message news:op.vqyk3emumpw3zg@so-pc... >>> 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. > > That variables of type "size_t" are frequently used to store indicies rather > than the actual *size* of anything? > > That it does nothing to help with 32/64-bit portability until you actually > compile your code both ways?
I don't understand that point. > > That Nick doesn't like it? ;) >
