bearophile can say "i told you so" (re uint->int implicit conv)

[renoX]

On Tuesday, 2 April 2013 at 07:49:04 UTC, Don wrote:
[cut]
> IMHO, array.length is *the* place where unsigned does *not* 
> work. size_t should be an integer. We're not supporting 16 bit 
> systems, and the few cases where a size_t value can potentially 
> exceed int.max could be disallowed.
>
> The problem with unsigned is that it gets used as "positive 
> integer", which it is not. I think it was a big mistake that D 
> turned C's  "unsigned long" into "ulong", thereby making it 
> look more attractive. Nobody should be using unsigned types 
> unless they have a really good reason. Unfortunately, size_t 
> forces you to use them.

You forgot something: an explanation why you feel that way..
I do consider unsigned int as "positive integer", why do you 
think that isn't the case?
IMHO the issue with unsigned are
1) implicit conversion: a C mistake and an even worst mistake to 
copy it from C knowing that this will lead to many errors!
2) lack of overflow checks by default.