Is it important to declare a variable as unsigned if you know it should never be negative? Does it help prevent anything other than negative numbers being fed into a function that shouldn't have them?
Unsigned integer constant is an integer constant which has the permissible range from 0 to 65536. Thus significance of declaring a constant as unsigned almost doubles the size of the largest possible value.
Unsigned variables are variables which are internally represented without a mathematical sign (plus or minus) can store 'zero' or positive values only. Let us say the unsigned variable is n bits in size, then it can represent 2^n (2 power n) values - 0 through (2^n -1).
Unsigned can hold a larger positive value and no negative value. Unsigned uses the leading bit as a part of the value, while the signed version uses the left-most-bit to identify if the number is positive or negative. Signed integers can hold both positive and negative numbers.
It doesn't prevent people misusing your interface, but at least they should get a warning unless they add a C-style cast or static_cast
to make it go away (in which case you cannot help them further).
Yes, there is value in this as it properly expresses the semantics you wish.
Declaring variables for semantically non-negative values as unsigned
is a good style and good programming practice.
However, keep in mind that it doesn't prevent you from making errors. If is perfectly legal to assign negative values to unsigned integers, with the value getting implicitly converted to unsigned form in accordance with the rules of unsigned arithmetic. Some compilers might issue warnings in such cases, others will do it quietly.
It is also worth noting that working with unsigned integers requires knowing some dedicated unsigned techniques. For example, a "classic" example that is often mentioned with relation to this issue is backward iteration
for (int i = 99; i >= 0; --i) {
/* whatever */
}
The above cycle looks natural with signed i
, but it cannot be directly converted to unsigned form, meaning that
for (unsigned i = 99; i >= 0; --i) {
/* whatever */
}
doesn't really do what it is intended to do (it is actually an endless cycle). The proper technique in this case is either
for (unsigned i = 100; i > 0; ) {
--i;
/* whatever */
}
or
for (unsigned i = 100; i-- > 0; ) {
/* whatever */
}
This is often used as an argument against unsigned types, i.e. allegedly the above unsigned versions of the cycle look "unnatural" and "unreadable". In reality though the issue we are dealing here is the generic issue of working near the left end of a closed-open range. This issue manifests itself in many different ways in C and C++ (like backward iteration over an array using the "sliding pointer" technique of backward iteration over a standard container using an iterator). I.e. regardless of how inelegant the above unsigned cycles might look to you, there's no way to avoid them entirely, even if you never use unsigned integer types. So, it is better to learn these techniques and include them into your set of established idioms.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With