bikeshedding: sizediff_t -> size_s ?

KennyTM~ kennytm at gmail.com
Mon May 9 22:28:34 PDT 2011


On May 10, 11 11:57, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I've noticed this thread a while ago:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/3881/focus=3885
>
> Maybe it's way too late for any changes, but I think sizediff_t is a
> mouthful. Doesn't size_s look nicer? It would be size_t's evil twin
> brother, look:
>
> size_s  imSoNegative;
> size_t  neverADowner;

-sizediff_t.max

The meaning of _t and _s suffix on types in C mean "type" and "struct" 
respectively, the latter never mean "signed". Using a C convention for a 
totally different meaning is going to confuse people. Further more, the 
difference between 'size_t' and 'size_s' is too small visually.

BTW, the signed version of size_t in C (POSIX) is called 'ssize_t'.

</bikeshed>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list