Re: [PATCH 5/6] canonicalize: prefer signed integer types

[Paul Eggert]

On 12/2/20 3:56 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> can we have typedef names for these signed types that
> are supposed to only have values >= 0 ?

More generally, when I'm reviewing code I naturally look for relationships like 
0 <= i < j < n. I can see where one might want to say "j is of type i+1 .. n-1" 
but all things considered it'd be better for the compiler and/or human reader to 
infer that sort of thing, than to clutter the code with something like "int 
__attribute__ ((range (i+1 .. n-1))) j;" when declaring j. Of course "idx_t j;" 
is much less clutter than the __attribute__ stuff but it's not clear that it's 
worth the bother to have yet another integer type for this sort of thing.