Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > happens, and we then decide that it's justifiable to say "well, let's fix it > for array.length by tossing that over to the 'can be negative' world, even > though it cuts our range of allowable values in half", then there's nothing > stopping us from solving the rest of the cases by throwing them over the > "can be negative" wall as well. All of a sudden, we have no unsigned.
Well... cutting out range can be no problem, after all a thought was floating around that structs shouldn't be larger that a couple of kb, note that array of shorts with signed length spans entire 32-bit address space.
