"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? That Nick doesn't like it? ;)
