size_t index=-1;

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 01:57:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> or wrap your integers in types that have more restrictive 
> rules. IIRC, at least one person around here has done that 
> already so that they can catch integer overflow - which is 
> basically what you're complaining about here.

That's me (building on Robert Schadek's work):
     https://code.dlang.org/packages/checkedint

Although I should point out that my `SmartInt` actually has 
*less* restrictive rules than the built-in types - all possible 
combinations of size and signedness are both allowed and safe for 
all operations, without any explicit casts. A lot of what 
`SmartInt` does depends on (minimal) extra runtime logic, which 
imposes a ~30% performance penalty (when integer math is actually 
the bottleneck) with good compiler optimizations (GDC or LDC).

But, a lot of it could also be done at no runtime cost, by 
leveraging VRP. C's integer math rules are really pretty bad, 
even when taking performance into account. Something as simple as 
by default promoting to a signed, rather than unsigned, type 
would prevent many bugs in practice, at zero cost (except that it 
would be a breaking change).

There is also `SafeInt` with "more restrictive rules", if it is 
for some reason necessary to work inside the limitations of the 
built-in basic integer types.