On Tuesday, 18 November 2014 at 18:03:35 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:59:04 +0000
David Eagen via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]>
wrote:
Isn't the purpose of size_t is to be large enough to address
all available memory? A negative value is not only too small
but doesn't make sense when discussing lengths.
Correctness requires using size_t.
yes. besides, there is no such thing as "negative length", so
it's
somewhat... weird to use signed integer for length.
The reason is so that D won't mess with implicit signed-unsigned
conversion, not negative length.
