Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On 17.02.2011 9:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "KennyTM~"<kennytm at gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:ijghne$ts1$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On Feb 16, 11 11:49, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On 2011-02-15 22:41:32 -0500, "Nick Sabalausky"<a at a.a>  said:
>>>
>>>> I like "nint".
>>> But is it unsigned or signed? Do we need 'unint' too?
>>>
>>> I think 'word'&  'uword' would be a better choice. I can't say I'm too
>>> displeased with 'size_t', but it's true that the 'size_t' feels out of
>>> place in D code because of its name.
>>>
>>>
>> 'word' may be confusing to Windows programmers because in WinAPI a 'WORD'
>> means an unsigned 16-bit integer (aka 'ushort').
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc230402(v=PROT.10).aspx
> That's just a legacy issue from when windows was mainly on 16-bit machines.
> "Word" means native size.
>
Tell that Intel guys, their assembler syntax (read most x86 assemblers) 
uses size prefixes word (2 bytes!), dword (4bytes), qword (8) etc.
And if that was only assembler syntax issue...

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky