length's type.

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:26:25PM +0000, Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Friday, 9 February 2024 at 15:19:32 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> > It's been discussed many, many times. The behavior is not going to
> > change - there won't even be a compiler warning. (You'll have to
> > check with the leadership for their reasons.)
> 
> Was (part of) the reason because it would disrupt existing code? If
> that was the blocker then editions are the solution.

Honestly, I think this issue is blown completely out of proportion. The
length of stuff in any language needs to be some type. D decided on an
unsigned type. You just learn that and adapt your code accordingly, end
of story.  Issues like these can always be argued both ways, and the
amount of energy spent in these debates far outweigh the trivial
workarounds in code, of which there are many (use std.conv.to for bounds
checks, just outright cast it if you know what you're doing (or just
foolhardy), use CheckedInt, etc.). And the cost of any change to the
type now also far, far outweighs any meager benefits it may have
brought.  It's just not worth it, IMNSHO.


T

-- 
Verbing weirds language. -- Calvin (& Hobbes)