problem with size_t and an easy solution

Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Dec 8 05:49:30 PST 2014


On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 08:46:49 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Freddy:
>
>> Why not keep size_t implictly convertable but disallow it for
>> usize.
>
> This is an interesting idea. (But the name "uword" seems 
> better).

The char, wchar (word char) and dchar (double word char) types 
seem to disagree.  The "word=2bytes" historical rule is rooted 
too deeply.  An "uword" will also be very confusing alongside 
lower level code (e.g. assembler).

Personally, when I face the need for a size_t, I usually can (and 
do) use auto instead.  And even if I have to spell it, I don't 
care too much how it's called, only whether it can be easily 
recognized.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list