problem with size_t and an easy solution

[Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 11:49:47 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:37:00 +0000
> Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>> YES.
>> And I want a signed variant of this (instead of the ugly 
>> ptrdiff_t):
>> I want to wield my sword!
> "uword" is meaningless, and "usize" is meaningfull. but i like
> "sword"... yet i used to 16-bit words.

This is just my opinion and I could be persuaded otherwise but 
word/uword seem nicer.  It seems more descriptive, the size of a 
word on the system. Also I see less potential for name conflicts. 
  The type "size" will probably conflict with alot of symbol names 
(function names/variables/etc).  I would be willing to bet this 
is why C/C++ initially used "size_t" instead of "size" in the 
first place.