On 20 February 2012 02:48, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 3:15 PM, Manu wrote: > >> Ultimately I don't care, I suspect the prior commitment to size_t and >> ptrdiff_t >> can not be changed (although redefining their meaning would not be a >> breaking >> change, it just might show some cases of inappropriate usages) >> I agree that nativeInt should probably be in the standard library, but I'm >> really not into that name. It's really long and ugly. That said, I >> basically >> hate size_t too, it doesn't seem very D-ish, reeks of C mischief... and C >> stuffs >> up those types so much. It's not dependable what they actually mean in C >> (ie. >> ptr size/native word size) on all compilers I've come in contact with :/ >> > > I really think that simply adding c_int and c_uint to core.stdc.config > will solve the issue. After all, is there any case where the corresponding > C int type would be different from a nativeInt? > ? I must have misunderstood something... I've never seen a 64bit C compiler where 'int' is 64bits.
