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

[bearophile via Digitalmars-d]

ketmar:

> ah, let range checking catch that.

No thanks, I prefer to not have bugs in the first place.


> besides, overflows are possible with signed ints too,

 From my experience in coding in D they are far more unlikely than 
sign-related bugs of array lengths.


> so what signed length does is simply hiding the bad code.

Signed lengths avoids traps that are quite easy to fall into.


> any code reviewer must ring
> a bell when he sees length subtraction without prior checking,
> be it signed or unsigned.

The unsigned nature of array lengths is more tricky than that. 
They cause troubles even if you just compare (with <) a length 
with a signed value.

Bye,
bearophile