Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ijett7$1ie$5 at digitalmars.com...
> Am 15.02.2011 23:00, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> "so" <so at so.so> wrote in message news:op.vqyk3emumpw3zg at so-pc...
>>>
>>> Funny thing is the most important argument against size_t got the least
>>> attention.
>>> I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.
>>
>> That variables of type "size_t" are frequently used to store indicies 
>> rather
>> than the actual *size* of anything?
>>
>> That it does nothing to help with 32/64-bit portability until you 
>> actually
>> compile your code both ways?
>
> I don't understand that point.
>

If you're writing something in 32-bit and you use size_t, it may compile 
perfectly fine for 32-bit, but the compiler won't tell you about any 
problems that will appear when you compile the same code for 64-bit (such as 
"can't implicitly convert"). Presumably the same would apply to writing 
something on 64-bit and then suddenly compiling for 32-bit.

I'm not actually asserting that this is a big issue. Maybe it is, maybe it 
isn't, I don't know. Just making guesses at what "so" sees as "the most 
important argument against size_t [that] got the least attention".