On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 11:49:47 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:37:00 +0000
Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 08:46:49 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> Freddy:
>
>> Why not keep size_t implictly convertable but disallow it
>> for
>> usize.
>
> This is an interesting idea. (But the name "uword" seems
> better).
YES.
And I want a signed variant of this (instead of the ugly
ptrdiff_t):
I want to wield my sword!
"uword" is meaningless, and "usize" is meaningfull. but i like
"sword"... yet i used to 16-bit words.
This is just my opinion and I could be persuaded otherwise but
word/uword seem nicer. It seems more descriptive, the size of a
word on the system. Also I see less potential for name conflicts.
The type "size" will probably conflict with alot of symbol names
(function names/variables/etc). I would be willing to bet this
is why C/C++ initially used "size_t" instead of "size" in the
first place.
