size_t index=-1;

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Friday, 18 March 2016 at 14:51:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> Note, I have made these mistakes myself, and I understand what 
> you are asking for and why you are asking for it. But these are 
> bugs. The user is telling the compiler to do one thing, and 
> expecting it to do something else. It's not difficult to fix, 
> and in fact, many lines of code are written specifically to 
> take advantage of these rules. This is why we cannot remove 
> them. The benefit is not worth the cost.

Actually, I think I confused things for you by mentioning to 
`cast(ulong)`.

I'm not asking for a Java-style "no unsigned" system (I hate 
that; it's one of my biggest annoyances with Java). Rather, I'm 
picking on *implicit* conversions between signed and unsigned.

I'm basically saying, "because information is lost when casting 
between signed and unsigned, all such casts should be explicit". 
This could make code rather verbose - except that from my 
experiments, with decent VRP the compiler can actually be 
surprisingly smart about warning only in those cases where 
implicit casting is really a bad idea.