Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1657.1297736740.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> 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.
>

If the "t" means "type", then "size_t" puts "what the symbol is" into the 
name of the symbol. Even if that *technically* isn't hungarian notation, 
it's the same basic principle.

Aside from that, what's the point of putting "type" in the name of a type? 
We don't say int_t, float_t, object_t, Widget_t, etc. That'd be stupid. They 
just simply *are* types. How about making a statement that has "_s" tacked 
on to the end of its name to specify that it's a statement? "foreach_s", 
"if_s". It's pointless.

If "size" isn't a good name for the type (and it isn't), then the solution 
is to find a better name, not to tack a "_t" to the end of it. C/C++ has a 
lot of stupid stuff that C/C++ programmers are used to. Doesn't mean D 
should copy it.