size_t + ptrdiff_t

Walter Bright newshound2 at
Sun Feb 19 16:48:03 PST 2012

On 2/19/2012 3:15 PM, Manu wrote:
> Ultimately I don't care, I suspect the prior commitment to size_t and ptrdiff_t
> can not be changed (although redefining their meaning would not be a breaking
> change, it just might show some cases of inappropriate usages)
> I agree that nativeInt should probably be in the standard library, but I'm
> really not into that name. It's really long and ugly. That said, I basically
> hate size_t too, it doesn't seem very D-ish, reeks of C mischief... and C stuffs
> up those types so much. It's not dependable what they actually mean in C (ie.
> ptr size/native word size) on all compilers I've come in contact with :/

I really think that simply adding c_int and c_uint to core.stdc.config will 
solve the issue. After all, is there any case where the corresponding C int type 
would be different from a nativeInt?

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list