On 02/15/2011 10:49 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
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?
Exactly :-)
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
