Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[spir]

On 02/15/2011 03:26 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.

size_t is not the type of size_t ;-)
For sure it is Hungarian notation. What is the type of size_t? Type (at least 
conceptually, even if D does not have live type elements). Just what the name says.

denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com