Re: gssize, gsize

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 12 Jun 2000, Owen Taylor wrote:

> Tim Janik <timj@gtk.org> writes:
> 
> > On 6 Jun 2000, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:

> > > We should just use size_t and ssize_t.
> > 
> > no, except for void, we use only g/G prefixed types in glib's API and
> > implementation and i don't remember agreeing to change that.
> 
>  #define gconst const
>  #define gwhile while
>  #define gif if

none of these is a type, and types were what i was referring to.

> GThis gtendency gcan go gto gfar.

that's just irelevant polemic commenting and won't get us anywhere.

> While I've come to believe that gint, gchar were bad ideas, I've been
> willing to keep them for the sake of tradition.
> 
> I don't think that means we have to keep on sticking a g in front of
> _everything_.

no one said that. i was talking about _types_ and not "_everything_",
like words used in comments or whatever else you come up with.

> A C programmer should know what size_t means. gsize requires them to
> learn something new for no good reason. In fact, since it isn't gsize_t,
> it isn't even guessable what it will be. It can't be claimed that
> there is a parallelism between:
> 
>  int => gint
>  size_t => gsize

you can draw the same argument for gconstpointer, and probably other
types. gsize and gssize are already there, lets just fix them and
be done with it.


> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ