Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?

> On 3 Jul 2023, at 20:32, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I couldn't find any rationale as to why we might want to have this alias and not use size_t. Any insight on this would be appreciated.

This used to be a typedef for unsigned int a very long time ago.

> Would there be any sense in changing it all to size_t or renaming it to something else?
>
> I understand that they will break some extensions, so if we don't want them to have to go through with the renaming, can we enable backward compatibility with a macro?
>
> If there's a willingness to try this out, I am happy to prepare a patch.

This has been discussed a number of times in the past, and the conclusion from
last time IIRC was to use size_t for new code and only change the existing
instances when touched for other reasons to avoid churn.

--
Daniel Gustafsson