'int' is enough for 'length' to migrate code from x86 to x64

[bearophile via Digitalmars-d]

David Gileadi:

>     writefln("%s", b.length - a.length);  // Yup, 2
>     writefln("%s", a.length - b.length);  // WAT? 
> 18446744073709551614

Nowadays a better way to write such kind of code is using the 
Phobos "signed" function:

writefln("%s", b.length.signed - a.length.signed);
writefln("%s", a.length.signed - b.length.signed);


> This is why I agree with Don that:
>
> > Having arr.length return an unsigned type, is a dreadful
> language mistake.

This mistake is by design. Walter has resisted several times 
turning them into signed values, and even making size_t a type 
strongly different from uint/ulong. I don't agree with this 
design decision, but it's unlikely that Walter has changed his 
mind on it. So better to go on and discuss other things more 
likely to happen.

Bye,
bearophile