Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Constexpr evaluation of heavy stuff
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 05:37:38 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <86pmk314z1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <t63uqq$hnm$1@dont-email.me> <t64r23$ncc$1@dont-email.me> <t654dl$cek$1@dont-email.me> <t656ke$otk$1@dont-email.me> <t65ed3$jgh$1@dont-email.me> <b4c80897-17a3-4951-a4a5-f3ca95c2f5d5n@googlegroups.com> <t65v09$bd9$1@dont-email.me> <727d656f-7e08-4be2-a0c9-c2dc9d29b00cn@googlegroups.com> <t67jvc$1q94$1@gioia.aioe.org> <978b4a0b-0740-4b01-96b0-4b9e52e0de1an@googlegroups.com> <87o7zs5wlt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t67rjj$kk3$1@dont-email.me> <87czg85udt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8dc30c48-e2ee-43e8-93fb-79f54704b879n@googlegroups.com> <t687pk$ilc$1@dont-email.me> <t68hah$uuh$1@dont-email.me> <t68qa0$8b9$1@dont-email.me> <t6bg4k$f9c$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e1c90591-0995-42d3-906f-21be7fddb30cn@googlegroups.com> <t6e3u2$d0l$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t6e9ki$n4a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6d60e850df502405df1b0fa46dc1963d"; logging-data="19509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+49m19oCG9ZiW7D9kYtt1GRkFxnwl3bjk="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qr1nm4DwlAmKgsR9jM02ByY7T0I= sha1:1M8OyHVTncnSOKxHEKFrr5VbNI0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:84252

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> I gather that that reality is very much part of why the language
> designer Bjarne Stroustrup says it's OK with that apparent/alleged
> range waste, and a mistake to use unsigned for sizes.  For example,
> Bjarne is one of the three main authors of the C++ Core Guidelines
> that recommends signed types for numbers.  He's even written a paper
> titled "Subscripts and sizes should be signed", available at <url:
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1428r0.pdf>;
> please read it.

I saw this essay several years ago (probably because someone
posted a link to it in the newsgroup here).  After seeing this
comment I got a fresh copy and re-read it, perhaps a bit more
carefully than my first reading.  Even with a fresh second look,
I still don't find it convincing.