3 ms·

Bjarne agrees. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1428r0.pdf https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p14...

• norir 6mo ago
  In my reading, what Stroustroup is saying is that given other problems in c/c++, that singed sizes are less bad than unsigned but both have clear and significant deficiencies. A new language doesn't have to inherit all of these deficiencies.
  • ok123456 6mo ago
    No. He says that signed/unsigned arithmetic is a universal problem. And in the context of std::span, using signed arithmetic is the correct choice rather than shoehorning in size_t to make it more cosmetically consistent with the rest of the STL.
• jcmoyer 6mo ago
  There is a really convincing set of arguments against this idea by Robert Seacord[1]. I used to be in the signed size camp, but I've come around to preferring unsigned as much as possible because it's much easier to reason about. I think there are far more footguns than people realize when it comes to signed integers. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82jVpEmAEV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82jVpEmAEV4
  • ok123456 6mo ago
    The only real benefits to unsigned math are that overflow is generally defined as a simple wrap (odometer), and it doubles the range. Relying on that doubled range for bounds is flirting with disaster, though. The downside is a pervasive, constant footgun every time you are dealing with indices.