signed vs unsigned

[LuB]

This isn't a C++ question per se ... but rather, I'm posting this bcs I
want the answer from a C++ language perspective. Hope that makes sense.

I was reading Peter van der Linden's "Expert C Programming: Deep C
Secrets" and came across the following statement:

"Avoid unnecessary complexity by minimizing your use of unsigned types.
Specifically, don't use an unsigned type to represent a quantity just
because it will never be negative (e.g., "age" or "national_debt" )."

Admittedly, I minimize comments in my code. I use them when necessary
but try to limit them to one or two lines. I just don't like their
aesthetic affect in the source. I find the code much harder to read
littered with paragraphs of explanations.

I find the code easier to read when broken up with appropriate newlines
and small, short comments acting as headings.

So - that effectually means that I try my darndest to write
self-describing code. Shorter functions, self-explanatory names for
functions and variable names, etc. Sometimes exceessive commenting is
necessary, but as a whole, I tend to avoid it.

I'm really enjoying Peter's book, but I find this comment hard to
swallow considering that if an age or array index can never be negative
- I would want to illustrate that with an apporpriate choice of type -
namely, unsigned int.

Am I in the minority here? Is my predilection considered poor style?

I guess, from the compiler's standpoint ... using int everywhere is
more portable ... since comparison's against unsigned int can vary
between K&R and ANSI C.

I'm not incurring some type of performance penalty for such decisions
am I?

Thanks in advance,

-Luther

[roberts.noah]

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Neil Cerutti:

On 2006-02-21, Tomás <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote:

My first rule is to write "const" wherever I can.
(except for return types).

My second rule is to write "unsigned" wherever I can.

I don't agree with that rule.

Thus I'll write:

unsigned GetDogAge(unsig ned const age)
{
return age * 7;
}

What do you expect to happen if a client passes in an negative int?

The argument is not in the domain, yet the error has been rendered
impossible to detect or recover from.

I don't disagree with your viewpoint regarding using or not using
unsigned whenever possible; I think both are valid viewpoints, and as
with indentation the main thing is to be consistent in one's choices.

However, I disagree with your reason!

With the unsigned argument a validity test might go like

assert( age < 200 ); // unsigned validity test.

With a signed argument the test might go like

assert( age >= 0 ); // signed validity test.
assert( age < 200 ); // more signed validity test.

Now, first of all that demonstrates the "impossible to detect" is simply
incorrect, and second, in my view it demonstrates a slight superiority
for unsigned in this particular case, with respect to validity testing.

I believe he is talking about something like this:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

unsigned int GetDogAge(unsig ned int age)
{
return age * 7;
}

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int t = -5;
unsigned int x = GetDogAge(t);

cout << x;

int y; cin >> y;

return 0;
}

------ Build started: Project: Playground, Configuration: Debug Win32
------

Compiling...
Playground.cpp
Linking...

Build log was saved at
"file://c:\src\Playgrou nd\Playground\D ebug\BuildLog.h tm"
Playground - 0 error(s), 0 warning(s)
---------------------- Done ----------------------

Build: 1 succeeded, 0 failed, 0 skipped

Output is, "4294967261 ."

It is an interesting point.

[andy]

Daniel T. wrote:

In article <11************ **********@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
ro**********@gm ail.com wrote:

The great thing about unsigned is if the value can't be negative and
you use signed then you always have to check it. Simply defining the
type as unsigned gets rid of all that as well as documenting your
domain.
And the bad thing about unsigned is that if code would otherwise make
the value negative, you can't check it. IE

void foo( unsigned s ) {
// at this point s == 4294966272
// is it an error (s came in as -1024) or
// does the client really want us to deal with that number?
}

Bjarne Stroustrup says, "The unsigned integer types are ideal for uses
that treat storage as a bit array. Using an unsigned instead of an int
to gain one more bit to represent positive integers is almost never a
good idea. Attempts to ensure that some values are positive by declaring
variables unsigned will typically be defeated by the implicit conversion
rules."

Sounds like a good excuse to write an unsigned_int class:

#include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp>
#include <boost/numeric/conversion/converter.hpp>
#include <boost/type_traits/is_unsigned.hpp >

class unsigned_int{
unsigned int m_value;
public:
template <typename T>
unsigned_int(T const & rhs,
typename boost::enable_i f<
boost::is_unsig ned<T>,
void*::type = 0

)
{
// further features
// throws on overflow when T is bigger eg unsigned long
boost::numeric: :converter<unsi gned int,T> convert;
m_value = convert(rhs);
}
};

int main()
{
unsigned_int n1 = 1U;
unsigned_int n2 = static_cast<uns igned short>(1);
unsigned_int n3 = 1UL;
unsigned_int n4 = static_cast<uns igned int>(1);

unsigned_int n5 = 1; // Error!
}

reagrds
Andy Little

[andy]

Daniel T. wrote:

In article <11************ **********@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
ro**********@gm ail.com wrote:

The great thing about unsigned is if the value can't be negative and
you use signed then you always have to check it. Simply defining the
type as unsigned gets rid of all that as well as documenting your
domain.
And the bad thing about unsigned is that if code would otherwise make
the value negative, you can't check it. IE

void foo( unsigned s ) {
// at this point s == 4294966272
// is it an error (s came in as -1024) or
// does the client really want us to deal with that number?
}

Bjarne Stroustrup says, "The unsigned integer types are ideal for uses
that treat storage as a bit array. Using an unsigned instead of an int
to gain one more bit to represent positive integers is almost never a
good idea. Attempts to ensure that some values are positive by declaring
variables unsigned will typically be defeated by the implicit conversion
rules."

Sounds like a good excuse for an unsigned_int class ...

#include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp>
#include <boost/numeric/conversion/converter.hpp>
#include <boost/type_traits/is_unsigned.hpp >

class unsigned_int{
unsigned int m_value;
public:
template <typename T>
unsigned_int(T const & rhs,
typename boost::enable_i f<
boost::is_unsig ned<T>,
void*::type = 0

)
{
// further features
// throws on overflow when T is bigger eg unsigned long
boost::numeric: :converter<unsi gned int,T> convert;
m_value = convert(rhs);
}
};

int main()
{
unsigned_int n1 = 1U;
unsigned_int n2 = static_cast<uns igned short>(1);
unsigned_int n3 = 1UL;
unsigned_int n4 = static_cast<uns igned int>(1);

unsigned_int n5 = 1; // Error!
}

reagrds
Andy Little

[andy]

Daniel T. wrote:

In article <11************ **********@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
ro**********@gm ail.com wrote:

The great thing about unsigned is if the value can't be negative and
you use signed then you always have to check it. Simply defining the
type as unsigned gets rid of all that as well as documenting your
domain.
And the bad thing about unsigned is that if code would otherwise make
the value negative, you can't check it. IE

void foo( unsigned s ) {
// at this point s == 4294966272
// is it an error (s came in as -1024) or
// does the client really want us to deal with that number?
}

Bjarne Stroustrup says, "The unsigned integer types are ideal for uses
that treat storage as a bit array. Using an unsigned instead of an int
to gain one more bit to represent positive integers is almost never a
good idea. Attempts to ensure that some values are positive by declaring
variables unsigned will typically be defeated by the implicit conversion
rules."

Sounds like a good excuse to write an unsigned_int class:

#include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp>
#include <boost/numeric/conversion/converter.hpp>
#include <boost/type_traits/is_unsigned.hpp >

class unsigned_int{
unsigned int m_value;
public:
template <typename T>
unsigned_int(T const & rhs,
typename boost::enable_i f<
boost::is_unsig ned<T>,
void*::type = 0

)
{
// further features
// throws on overflow when T is bigger eg unsigned long
boost::numeric: :converter<unsi gned int,T> convert;
m_value = convert(rhs);
}
};

int main()
{
unsigned_int n1 = 1U;
unsigned_int n2 = static_cast<uns igned short>(1);
unsigned_int n3 = 1UL;
unsigned_int n4 = static_cast<uns igned int>(1);

unsigned_int n5 = 1; // Error!
}

reagrds
Andy Little

[andy]

a...@servocomm. freeserve.co.uk wrote:

Sorry
Sorry
Sorry for posting 3 times. Browser hung up

regards
Andy Little

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* ro**********@gm ail.com:

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

* Neil Cerutti:

On 2006-02-21, Tomás <NU**@NULL.NULL > wrote:
My first rule is to write "const" wherever I can.
(except for return types).

My second rule is to write "unsigned" wherever I can.
I don't agree with that rule.

Thus I'll write:

unsigned GetDogAge(unsig ned const age)
{
return age * 7;
}
What do you expect to happen if a client passes in an negative int?

The argument is not in the domain, yet the error has been rendered
impossible to detect or recover from. I don't disagree with your viewpoint regarding using or not using
unsigned whenever possible; I think both are valid viewpoints, and as
with indentation the main thing is to be consistent in one's choices.

However, I disagree with your reason!

With the unsigned argument a validity test might go like

assert( age < 200 ); // unsigned validity test.

With a signed argument the test might go like

assert( age >= 0 ); // signed validity test.
assert( age < 200 ); // more signed validity test.

Now, first of all that demonstrates the "impossible to detect" is simply
incorrect, and second, in my view it demonstrates a slight superiority
for unsigned in this particular case, with respect to validity testing.

I believe he is talking about something like this:

[snip] int t = -5;
unsigned int x = GetDogAge(t);

Yes, that would be caught by the validity test for unsigned formal arg,

assert( age < 200 );

Cheers,

- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[wkaras]

LuB wrote:

This isn't a C++ question per se ... but rather, I'm posting this bcs I
want the answer from a C++ language perspective. Hope that makes sense.

I was reading Peter van der Linden's "Expert C Programming: Deep C
Secrets" and came across the following statement:

"Avoid unnecessary complexity by minimizing your use of unsigned types.
Specifically, don't use an unsigned type to represent a quantity just
because it will never be negative (e.g., "age" or "national_debt" )."

Admittedly, I minimize comments in my code. I use them when necessary
but try to limit them to one or two lines. I just don't like their
aesthetic affect in the source. I find the code much harder to read
littered with paragraphs of explanations.

I find the code easier to read when broken up with appropriate newlines
and small, short comments acting as headings.

So - that effectually means that I try my darndest to write
self-describing code. Shorter functions, self-explanatory names for
functions and variable names, etc. Sometimes exceessive commenting is
necessary, but as a whole, I tend to avoid it.

I'm really enjoying Peter's book, but I find this comment hard to
swallow considering that if an age or array index can never be negative
- I would want to illustrate that with an apporpriate choice of type -
namely, unsigned int.

Am I in the minority here? Is my predilection considered poor style?

I guess, from the compiler's standpoint ... using int everywhere is
more portable ... since comparison's against unsigned int can vary
between K&R and ANSI C.

I'm not incurring some type of performance penalty for such decisions
am I?

Thanks in advance,

-Luther
It's like driving on the left or driving on the right. It's basically
an
arbitrary choice (now that we drive cars), it's just good if everyone
makes the same arbitrary choice. That is if there's more than
just you on the road, which is analagous to maintaining
existing code or heavily using libraries written by others.

Many compilers generate (to me helpful) warnings if you do a, <, <=, >= comparison between a signed and unsigned.

Many also generate (to me useless) warnings if you do a
== or != comparison between a signed and unsigned. So,
you can end up with alot of static_casts to get rid of the
warnings.

For some reason, if an unsigned type is used in an expression
where it has to be implicitly converted to a larger type, it
will be converted to a signed larger type. As far as I can
see, this rule has no practical effect, other than to give
some compilers an excuse to generate unnecessary
warnings. (I guess it could change the results when
using bitwise ops on variables of different sizes, which
to me is a bad idea anyway.) So, that's one reason to prefer
signed. But, like you, I prefer to use unsigned for variables that
should always be nonnegative, to make the intent clear.

[Ben Pope]

Daniel T. wrote:

In article <11************ **********@f14g 2000cwb.googleg roups.com>,
ro**********@gm ail.com wrote:

The great thing about unsigned is if the value can't be negative and
you use signed then you always have to check it. Simply defining the
type as unsigned gets rid of all that as well as documenting your
domain.

And the bad thing about unsigned is that if code would otherwise make
the value negative, you can't check it. IE

Surely overflow and underflow are a problem with both signed and unsigned?

These are often situations where you are unable to check validity
without domain specific knowledge - I don't see how signed unsigned vary
in that regard.

Ben Pope
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...

[Gavin Deane]

LuB wrote:

This isn't a C++ question per se ... but rather, I'm posting this bcs I
want the answer from a C++ language perspective. Hope that makes sense.

I was reading Peter van der Linden's "Expert C Programming: Deep C
Secrets" and came across the following statement:

"Avoid unnecessary complexity by minimizing your use of unsigned types.
Specifically, don't use an unsigned type to represent a quantity just
because it will never be negative (e.g., "age" or "national_debt" )."

Admittedly, I minimize comments in my code. I use them when necessary
but try to limit them to one or two lines. I just don't like their
aesthetic affect in the source. I find the code much harder to read
littered with paragraphs of explanations.

I find the code easier to read when broken up with appropriate newlines
and small, short comments acting as headings.

So - that effectually means that I try my darndest to write
self-describing code. Shorter functions, self-explanatory names for
functions and variable names, etc. Sometimes exceessive commenting is
necessary, but as a whole, I tend to avoid it.
Self-explanatory names are good.
I'm really enjoying Peter's book, but I find this comment hard to
swallow considering that if an age or array index can never be negative
- I would want to illustrate that with an apporpriate choice of type -
namely, unsigned int.
Why would you want to illustrate it with an appropriate choice of type?
I would want to illustrate it with a self-explanatory name.
Am I in the minority here? Is my predilection considered poor style?

I guess, from the compiler's standpoint ... using int everywhere is
more portable ... since comparison's against unsigned int can vary
between K&R and ANSI C.

I'm not incurring some type of performance penalty for such decisions
am I?

This question comes up regularly. Search the history of the newsgroup
and you will find plenty of discussion. But I am slightly surprised to
see this thread get to nearly 20 posts (as far as I can see so far)
without anyone mentioning the subtraction issue.

Personally, I do not accept that argument for unsigned as documentation
to mean "negative values make no sense here". The variable name (age,
buffer_size, radius) serves that purpose. Comparison with const is not
valid. const is useful because it is enforced by the compiler. unsigned
is not enforced. -1 years does not make sense for age, but neither does
4294967295 years. At best, using unsigned has only documented one end
of your range. And since the variable name has already achieved that,
you haven't gained anything.

But that's not the only reason I don't use unsigned for these sort of
quantities. In general, subtracting one person's age from another in
the real world yields a signed result but in C++ subtracting one
unsigned quantity from another yields an unsigned result.

<quote Kaz Kylheku (in post number 28 as I write this)>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...236f41f9de66f8

Thus code like if (buffer_space - requested_paylo ad > header_size)
is broken if unsigned integers are used, and there was no prior check
that the requested_paylo ad isn't larger than the buffer.

</quote>

Both signed and unsigned arithmetic in C++ behave just like real world
integer arithmetic until you reach the minimum and maximum values for
those types. The difference is that for signed, the correlation between
the real world and C++ breaks down at + or - a very big number, whereas
for unsigned, the correlation between the real world and C++ breaks
down at zero and a (different) very big number.

In other words, if I use unsigned, I am very close to the edge of the
domain in which C++ arithmetic corresponds to the real world. If I use
signed, I am comfortably in the middle of that domain and the
extremities where I have to start coding for special cases are far, far
away from any number that I am likely to ever want to use for an age or
a length or a size, or I am likely to ever end up with by doing
arithmetic with those quantities.

Gavin Deane

[Ben Pope]

Gavin Deane wrote:

But that's not the only reason I don't use unsigned for these sort of
quantities. In general, subtracting one person's age from another in
the real world yields a signed result but in C++ subtracting one
unsigned quantity from another yields an unsigned result.

<quote Kaz Kylheku (in post number 28 as I write this)>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...236f41f9de66f8

Thus code like if (buffer_space - requested_paylo ad > header_size)
is broken if unsigned integers are used, and there was no prior check
that the requested_paylo ad isn't larger than the buffer.

</quote>
That's a very good point.
Both signed and unsigned arithmetic in C++ behave just like real world
integer arithmetic until you reach the minimum and maximum values for
those types. The difference is that for signed, the correlation between
the real world and C++ breaks down at + or - a very big number, whereas
for unsigned, the correlation between the real world and C++ breaks
down at zero and a (different) very big number.

In other words, if I use unsigned, I am very close to the edge of the
domain in which C++ arithmetic corresponds to the real world. If I use
signed, I am comfortably in the middle of that domain and the
extremities where I have to start coding for special cases are far, far
away from any number that I am likely to ever want to use for an age or
a length or a size, or I am likely to ever end up with by doing
arithmetic with those quantities.

In an ideal world, we would probably all do range checking more often
than we do.

I always say you make your own luck, with signed types you're more lucky!

Ben Pope
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...