Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[spir]

On 02/15/2011 10:49 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-02-15 16:33:33 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> said:
>
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I would agree that D is a complete waste of time if all it consisted of was
>> renaming things.
>
> I'm just wondering whether 'size_t', because it is named after its C
> counterpart, doesn't feel too alien in D, causing people to prefer 'uint' or
> 'ulong' instead even when they should not. We're seeing a lot of code failing
> on 64-bit because authors used the fixed-size types which are more D-like in
> naming. Wouldn't more D-like names that don't look like relics from C --
> something like 'word' and 'uword' -- have helped prevent those bugs by making
> the word-sized type look worth consideration?

Exactly :-)

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com