[Issue 5063] Stronger typedef for size_t
d-bugmail at puremagic.com
d-bugmail at puremagic.com
Mon Oct 25 01:09:19 PDT 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5063
Walter Bright <bugzilla at digitalmars.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |bugzilla at digitalmars.com
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Walter Bright <bugzilla at digitalmars.com> 2010-10-25 01:08:31 PDT ---
Code that compiles on 32 bits but fails to compile on 64 bits with an
appropriate message is not much of a problem. Making size_t its own type rather
than an alias brings along a whole host of other problems.
Besides, it is perfectly legitimate to use an int to index an array on 64 bits.
Also, it is D best practice to rewrite:
int i = array.length;
as:
auto i = array.length;
unless one *specifically* requires an int.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
More information about the Digitalmars-d-bugs
mailing list