Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

spir denis.spir at gmail.com
Tue Feb 15 03:46:03 PST 2011


On 02/15/2011 06:51 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> The question is then do you want to be more consistent with the
>> language (abolish size_t and make something nicer), or be consistent
>> with the known standards (C99 ISO, et all.).
>>
>> I'd vote for a change, but I know it will never happen (even though it
>> just might not be too late if we're not coding for 64 bits yet). It's
>> hardcoded in the skin of C++ programmers, and Walter is at least one
>> of them.
>
> We also don't go around renaming should to shud, or use dvorak keyboards.
>
> Having to constantly explain that "use 'ourfancyname' instead of size_t, it
> works exactly the same as size_t" is a waste of our time and potential users'
> time.

Having to constantly explain that "_t" means type, that "size" does not mean 
size, what this type is supposed to mean instead, what it is used for in core 
and stdlib functionality, and what programmers are supposed to use it for... 
isn't this a waste of our time? This, only because the name is mindless?

Please, just allow others having a correct, meaningful (and hopefully 
styleguide compliant) alternative --defined as a standard just like size_t. And 
go on using size_t as you like it.

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



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list