From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <108dlq4$2fi6h$4@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 8/19/2025 1:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <10823ei$3pb8v$3@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>> On 8/19/2025 9:01 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-08-18, Dan Cross  wrote:   
   >>>>> I happen to disagree with Simon's notion of what makes for   
   >>>>> robust programming, but to go to such an extreme as to suggest   
   >>>>> that writing code as if logical operators don't short-circuit   
   >>>>> is the same as not knowing the semantics of division is   
   >>>>> specious.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That last one is an interesting example. I may not care about   
   >>>> short circuiting, but I am _very_ _very_ aware of the combined   
   >>>> unsigned integers and signed integers issues in C expressions. :-(   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It also affects how I look at the same issues in other languages.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I've mentioned this before, but I think languages should give you   
   >>>> unsigned integers by default, and you should have to ask for   
   >>>> a signed integer if you really want one.   
   >>>   
   >>> "by default" sort of imply signedness being an attribute of   
   >>> same type.   
   >>>   
   >>> Why not just make it two different types with different names?   
   >   
   >>> Whether we follow tradition and call them integer and cardinal   
   >>> or more modern style and call them int and uint is less important.   
   >>   
   >> I would argue that, at this point, there's little need for a   
   >> generic "int" type anymore, and that types representing integers   
   >> as understood by the machine should explicitly include both   
   >> signedness and width.  An exception may be something like,   
   >> `size_t`, which is platform-dependent, but when transferred   
   >> externally should be given an explicit size.  A lot of the   
   >> guesswork and folklore that goes into understanding the   
   >> semantics of those things just disappears when you're explicit.   
   >   
   >The integer types should have well defined width.   
   >   
   >And they could also be called int32 and uint32.   
   >   
   >That seems to be in fashion in low level languages   
   >competing with C.   
   >   
   >Many higher level languages just define that int is 32 bit,   
   >but don't show it in the name.   
      
   If by "many higher level languages" you mean languages in the   
   JVM and CLR ecosystem, then sure, I guess so.  But it's not   
   universal, and I don't see how it's an improvement.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)