size_t index=-1;

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 01:57:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Just assigning one to the other really isn't a problem, and 
> sometimes you _want_ the wraparound. If you assume that it's 
> always the case that assigning a negative value to an unsigned 
> type is something that programmers don't want to do, then you 
> haven't programmed in C enough.

Greater than 90% of the time, even in low level code, an 
assignment, comparison, or any other operation that mixes signed 
and unsigned types is being done directly (without bounds 
checking) only for speed, laziness, or ignorance - not because 
2's complement mapping of negative to positive values is actually 
desired.

Forcing deliberate invocations of 2's complement mapping between 
signed and unsigned types to be explicitly marked is a good 
thing, seeing as the intended semantics are fundamentally 
different. I interpret any resistance to this idea, simply as 
evidence that we haven't yet made it sufficiently easy/pretty to 
be explicit.

Any idea that it's actually *desirable* for code to be ambiguous 
in this way is just silly.