Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 15.02.2011 23:00, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "so" <so at so.so> wrote in message news:op.vqyk3emumpw3zg at so-pc...
>>> 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.
> 
> That variables of type "size_t" are frequently used to store indicies rather 
> than the actual *size* of anything?
> 
> That it does nothing to help with 32/64-bit portability until you actually 
> compile your code both ways?

I don't understand that point.

> 
> That Nick doesn't like it? ;)
>