Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Mon Feb 14 18:26:39 PST 2011
On Monday, February 14, 2011 18:19:35 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1655.1297736016.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
> > 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.
>
> So it's (modified) hungarian notation? Didn't that go out with boy bands,
> Matrix spoofs and dancing CG babies?
How is it hungarian notation? Hungarian notation puts the type of the variable
in the name. size_t _is_ the type. I don't see any relation to hungarian
notation. And I'm pretty sure that size_t predates the invention of hungarian
notation by a fair margin anyway.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list