Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Kevin Bealer]

== Quote from Daniel Gibson (metalcaedes at gmail.com)'s article
> It was not proposed to alter ulong (int64), but to only a size_t equivalent. ;)
> And I agree that not having unsigned types (like in Java) just sucks.
> Wasn't Java even advertised as a programming language for network stuff? Quite
> ridiculous without unsigned types..
> Cheers,
> - Daniel

Ah yes, but if you want to copy data quickly you want to use the efficient size
for doing so.  Since architectures vary, size_t (or the new name if one is added)
would seem to new users to be the natural choice for that size.  So it becomes a
likely error if it doesn't behave as expected.

My personal reaction to this thread is that I think most of the arguments of the
people who want to change the name or add a new one are true -- but not sufficient
to make it worth while.  There is always some learning curve and size_t is not
that hard to learn or that hard to accept.

Kevin