size_t + ptrdiff_t

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 16:59:05 Manu wrote:
> Personally, I don't like the _t notation at all. It doesn't fit the rest of
> the D types, but it's established, so I don't expect it can change. But we
> do need the 2 missing types.
> 
> There is also the problem that there is lots of code written using the
> incorrect types. Some time needs to be taken to correct phobos too I guess

For better or worse, that's what we have, and they come from C, so at least 
they'll be reconizable to anyone from that realm. Honestly, I'm so used to 
size_t in C/C++ that I never thought about it until someone complained about 
it. It _is_ a valid point though. Still, it's too late now.

However, I _would_ point out that one major adavntage of having size_t and 
ptrdiff_t named so differently from the other built-in integral types is that 
all of the types using the _t convention can change their size based on the 
architecture, whereas none of the others do. So, the _t shows that the size of 
the type isn't fixed like most D types are.

- Jonathan M Davis