Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[so]

> I disagree that the discussion is pointless.
> On the contrary, the OP pointed out some valid points:
>
> 1.  that size_t is inconsistent with D's style guide. the "_t" suffix is  
> a C++ convention and not a D one. While it makes sense for [former?] C++  
> programmers it will confuse newcomers to D from other languages that  
> would expect the language to follow its own style guide.
> 2. the proposed change is backwards compatible - the OP asked for an  
> *additional* alias.
> 3. generic concepts should belong to the standard library and not user  
> code which is also where size_t is already defined.
>
> IMO, we already have a byte type, it's plain common sense to extend this  
> with a "native word" type.

Funny thing is the most important argument against size_t got the least  
attention.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.