We need to clarify if 'real' is the 'default floating point type' or not.

[Robert Fraser]

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
sounds a lot like the 'int' problem: why
> should 'int' be established as the default integral type, when it is 
> inefficient on 64-bit hardware (and on 16-bit, 8-bit, .... )?
> 
> D's very proud of having fixed sized types, and rightly so, but there 
> clearly are situations where size doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter. 
> Of course, there's a minimum limit, when any smaller would just be 
> ridiculous. ...uh... nevermind.

I agree, which I why I use ptrdiff_t for all my signed integer needs.