size_t + ptrdiff_t
turkeyman at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 03:02:38 PST 2012
On 20 February 2012 02:48, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 3:15 PM, Manu wrote:
>> Ultimately I don't care, I suspect the prior commitment to size_t and
>> can not be changed (although redefining their meaning would not be a
>> 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
>> hate size_t too, it doesn't seem very D-ish, reeks of C mischief... and C
>> up those types so much. It's not dependable what they actually mean in C
>> 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?
? I must have misunderstood something... I've never seen a 64bit C compiler
where 'int' is 64bits.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Digitalmars-d