Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, February 14, 2011 17:58:17 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1650.1297733226.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> 
> > On Monday, February 14, 2011 17:06:43 spir wrote:
> >> Rename size-t, or rather introduce a meaningful standard alias? (would
> >> vote
> >> for Natural)
> > 
> > Why? size_t is what's used in C++. It's well known and what lots of
> > programmers
> > would expect What would you gain by renaming it?
> 
> Although I fully realize how much this sounds like making a big deal out of
> nothing, to me, using "size_t" has always felt really clumsy and awkward. I
> think it's partly because of using an underscore in such an otherwise short
> identifier, and partly because I've been aware of size_t for years and
> still don't have the slightest clue WTF that "t" means. Something like
> "wordsize" would make a lot more sense and frankly feel much nicer.
> 
> And, of course, there's a lot of well-known things in C++ that D
> deliberately destroys. D is a different language, it may as well do things
> better.

I believe that t is for type. The same goes for types such as time_t. The size 
part of the name is probably meant to be short for either word size or pointer 
size.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with size_t and see no reason to change it. If 
it were a particularly bad name and there was a good suggestion for a 
replacement, then perhaps I'd support changing it. But I see nothing wrong with 
size_t at all.

- Jonathan M Davis