On 22 January 2012 05:51, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: > "Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > On 1/21/2012 7:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> On Saturday, January 21, 2012 21:54:37 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >>> It wouldn't have to change, just have a better name added. No reason > >>> 'size_t', et al, couldn't still be kept for compatibility. > >> > >> Except that we're generally against keeping around alias cruft like that > >> except temporarily as part of a deprecation path, so that doesn't > usually > >> fly. > >> Certainly, it means that if you want that to happen, you'd then have to > >> be > >> able to come up with a name and arguments for it which justified having > >> two > >> standard aliases for the same thing. > > > > I agree with Jonathan. Two names for the same thing just blows. > > Sure it blows, but not as much as sticking to god-awful names like > ptrdiff_t > and size_t. > > And yea, you could label it a bikeshedding issue, but really...There's > questionable bikeshed colors, and then there's "lime green with orange > stripes and pink polka dots, all largely obscured by a giant shit stain and > three rotting rat carcasses." >
Also size_t and ptrdiff_t are not necessarily the same size. Is there a signed size_t type? Is there an unsigned ptrdiff_t type? What are they?
