Treating the abusive unsigned syndrome

[Kagamin]

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> happens, and we then decide that it's justifiable to say "well, let's fix it 
> for array.length by tossing that over to the 'can be negative' world, even 
> though it cuts our range of allowable values in half", then there's nothing 
> stopping us from solving the rest of the cases by throwing them over the 
> "can be negative" wall as well. All of a sudden, we have no unsigned.

Well... cutting out range can be no problem, after all a thought was floating around that structs shouldn't be larger that a couple of kb, note that array of shorts with signed length spans entire 32-bit address space.