== Quote from Daniel Gibson (metalcae...@gmail.com)'s article > It was not proposed to alter ulong (int64), but to only a size_t equivalent. > ;) > And I agree that not having unsigned types (like in Java) just sucks. > Wasn't Java even advertised as a programming language for network stuff? Quite > ridiculous without unsigned types.. > Cheers, > - Daniel
Ah yes, but if you want to copy data quickly you want to use the efficient size for doing so. Since architectures vary, size_t (or the new name if one is added) would seem to new users to be the natural choice for that size. So it becomes a likely error if it doesn't behave as expected. My personal reaction to this thread is that I think most of the arguments of the people who want to change the name or add a new one are true -- but not sufficient to make it worth while. There is always some learning curve and size_t is not that hard to learn or that hard to accept. Kevin
