Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 15.02.2011 22:20, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:ijeil4$2aso$3 at digitalmars.com...
>> spir wrote:
>>> Having to constantly explain that "_t" means type, that "size" does not 
>>> mean size, what this type is supposed to mean instead, what it is used 
>>> for in core and stdlib functionality, and what programmers are supposed 
>>> to use it for... isn't this a waste of our time? This, only because the 
>>> name is mindless?
>>
>> No, because there is a vast body of work that uses size_t and a vast body 
>> of programmers who know what it is and are totally used to it.
>>
> 
> And there's a vast body who don't.
> 

They've got to learn some name for it anyway, so why not size_t?
This also makes using C functions that use size_t easier/more clear.

> And there's a vast body who are used to C++, so let's just abandon D and 
> make it an implementation of C++ instead.
>