Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:35:20 -0500 Message-ID: <5011E247.1F7B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:35:19 -0400 From: pete Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com Organization: PF X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.154.216.19 X-Trace: sv3-3dsh76tjFHIwmewvWHr1FnLi/WUtpZ3aVlGKJZ1U5+UsswLGkw2ZBVHTroV9B21A/mfg5r1aerKjL/y!9kDU59pAj36CsGjdhQTJafTmxqmVudncm0fwsdIxac8pMztbz+I1B/laIQYVTGyB7k1t0L7/3mIj!aV2HJFa2GQ== X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 1499 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:23774 Ansel wrote: > If C's unsigned integer types > were designed so that their maximum value > was the same as the absolute value > of the same width signed integer type's minimum value, > wouldn't that automagically elimintate > a bunch of erroneous code and simplify programming in C? I have always found programming with unsigned integers to be simple and easy, so your point of view is difficult for me to understand. -- pete