On 19/02/2012 23:47, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 02/20/12 00:17, Manu wrote:
<snip>
core.stdc.stdint.uintptr_t
O_o .. how is this different to size_t now? Why the redundant alias?
C compatibility?
Why would you want to use meaningless type aliases defined in the C headers in
D code?
It is redundant in D, at least until it supports non-flat address spaces. :^)
uintptr_t can hold a pointer,
<snip>
Why would you want to do that, as opposed to use one of the pointer types (which is indeed
required for GC to work correctly)?
Stewart.
