Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015)

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by phkahler on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @01:38PM (#32568319)

I'd argue that is a terrible way to write it since it depends on the rollover to terminate. Using i >= 0 is less mental work but also requires that i be signed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by ghoward on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @01:40PM (#32568370)

Rollover on unsigned ints is well-defined in C.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by hbn on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @03:36PM (#32570240)

I think their point is that it's less well defined in the average human's brain

When most people see 0 - 1 they don't immediately think 11111111111111111111111111111111

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by ghoward on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @05:09PM (#32571551)

We're talking about C, though. I hope the average human is not writing C.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by jcelerier on Wednesday August 24, 2022 @04:17AM (#32576313)

the average person writing C is absolutely an average human in terms of relationship with mathematics

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by xdavidliu on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @01:48PM (#32568484)

if we used i >= 0 and someone were to come in and change "int i" to "unsigned i" or "size_t i", the result would be catastrophic

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using signed or unsigned int by default in C (2015) by Leherenn on Tuesday August 23, 2022 @03:07PM (#32569739)

The same argument can be applied to GP's code with the added bonus it will cause UB at some point.

[ Parent | on HN ]