On 02/20/12 04:21, Stewart Gordon wrote: > 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?
C compatibility? >> 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)? That's how it can be used in *C*. And the reason it needs to be exposed to D code is for interoperability with C. artur
