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

[flamencofantasy via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 20 November 2014 at 15:40:40 UTC, Araq wrote:
>> Most of the statements I disagreed with were opinions.
>>
>>>>> "unsigned" means "I want to use modulo 2^^n arithmetic". It 
>>>>> does
>>>>> not mean, "this is an integer which cannot be negative".
>>
>> Opinion.
>>
>>>>> Using modulo 2^^n arithmetic is *weird*.
>>
>> Opinion.
>>
>>>>> If you are using
>>>>> uint/ulong to represent a non-negative integer, you are 
>>>>> using the
>>>>> incorrect type.
>>
>> Opinion.
>>
>>>>> I believe that
>>>>> bugs caused by unsigned calculations are subtle and require 
>>>>> an
>>>>> extraordinary level of diligence.
>>
>> Opinion (correctly qualified as belief).
>
> It's not only his "opinion", it's his *experience* and if we 
> want
> to play the "argument by authority" game: he most likely wrote
> more production quality code in D than you did.
>
> Here are some more "opinions":
> http://critical.eschertech.com/2010/04/07/danger-unsigned-types-used-here/

My experience is totally the opposite of his. I have been using 
unsigned for lengths, widths, heights for the past 15 years in C, 
C++, C# and more recently in D with great success. I don't 
pretend to be any kind of authority though.
The article you point to is totally flawed and kinda wasteful in 
terms of having to read it; the very first code snippet is 
obviously buggy. You can't purposefully write buggy code and then 
comment on the dangers of this or that!
size_t i;
  for (i = size - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
If you that's subtle to you then yes, use signed!