Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Don]

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.

To my mind, a bigger problem is that size_t is WRONG. It should be an 
integer. NOT unsigned.