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

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 11/19/14 4:24 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 04:08:11PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 11/19/14 12:40 PM, bearophile wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>>
>>>> There are related bugs in Java too, e.g. I remember one in binary
>>>> search where (i + j) / 2 was wrong because of an overflow.
>>>
>>> This is possible in D too.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, Java does have a package for unsigned integers so apparently
>>>> it's necessary.
>>>
>>> This is irrelevant. No one here is saying that a system language
>>> should not have unsigned values. The discussion here is about the
>>> type of array lengths.
>>
>> I think we're in good shape with unsigned. -- Andrei
>
> Implicit conversion between signed/unsigned is the fly that spoils the
> soup, and the source of subtle bugs that persistently crop up when
> dealing with size_t. The fact of the matter is that humans are
> error-prone, even when they are aware of the pitfalls of mixing signed /
> unsigned types, and currently the language is doing nothing to help
> prevent these sorts of mistakes.

That I partially, fractionally even, agree with. We agonized for a long 
time about what to do to improve on the state of the art back in 2007 - 
literally months I recall. Part of the conclusion was that reverting to 
int for object lengths would be a net negative.

Andrei