"gölgeliyele" <usul...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ijfc4m$16p6$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 2/15/11 12:24 PM, foobar wrote: >> 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. > > Look at the basic data types: > > bool, byte, ubyte, short, ushort, int, uint, long, ulong, cent, ucent, > float, double, real, ifloat, idouble, ireal, cfloat, cdouble, creal, char, > wchar, dchar > While size_t is just an alias, it will be used in a similar way to the > above. One can see that it does not fit among these, stylistically > speaking. There seems to be a common pattern here, a prefixing character > is consistently used to differentiate basic types, such as u-short/short, > c-float/float, w-char/char, etc. I wonder if something similar can be done > for size_t. nint comes to mind, for native int, that is n-int. Sample > code: >
I like "nint". > nint end = 0; // nintendo :) > Heh, I like that even more. It's "int eger;" for a new generation :) And much less contrived, come to think of it.