[racket] size_t and FFI?

On 2013-02-10 9:00 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think that's likely to be right for all platforms where Racket runs,
> but we should define it in one place.

Cool.

> Should we add `_size' to `ffi/unsafe', risking collisions with existing
> code?

This sounds best to me. (And while I think it should be _size_t, that
would be inconsistent with the existing _uintXY etc. Hmm. Never mind.)

There is no _size identifier in any of the current Racket codebase, so
no collisions there. Does anyone have a full greppable snapshot of
planet to check?

Cheers,
  Tony