> On 3 Jul 2023, at 20:32, Yurii Rashkovskii <yra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't find any rationale as to why we might want to have this alias and > not use size_t. Any insight on this would be appreciated. This used to be a typedef for unsigned int a very long time ago. > Would there be any sense in changing it all to size_t or renaming it to > something else? > > I understand that they will break some extensions, so if we don't want them > to have to go through with the renaming, can we enable backward compatibility > with a macro? > > If there's a willingness to try this out, I am happy to prepare a patch. This has been discussed a number of times in the past, and the conclusion from last time IIRC was to use size_t for new code and only change the existing instances when touched for other reasons to avoid churn. -- Daniel Gustafsson
