"Unsigned integer" is an oxymoron since integers are defined to include negative numbers.
That's an odd definition of an oxymoron. While "integer" if unmodified does include negative numbers, isn't "unsigned" just an adjective, restricting the general category to the subset to the non-negative subset? For example, is "white swan" an oxymoron because swans can be both black and white?
Interestingly, my first reaction reading your linked code was that not all "integer overflow" is undefined, only signed integer overflow. Regardless of technical correctness, I thought about suggesting that it would read more clearly if you specified "signed" and "unsigned" rather than using "integer" to refer to what programmers refer to as "signed".
Yes, both are fair points. "Oxymoron" was a lazy jab I just came up with on the fly.
You're right that only signed ints admit undefined behavior. Unfortunately you can't get by using just unsigned ints. So for me the choice was between mixing signed/unsigned and just using signed everywhere. If use of signed ints is unavoidable and also leads to undefined behavior, I'd like to exercise it more often in hopes of learning faster what things I shouldn't be doing. This seems like the more antifragile choice (http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incer...).
That's an odd definition of an oxymoron. While "integer" if unmodified does include negative numbers, isn't "unsigned" just an adjective, restricting the general category to the subset to the non-negative subset? For example, is "white swan" an oxymoron because swans can be both black and white?
Interestingly, my first reaction reading your linked code was that not all "integer overflow" is undefined, only signed integer overflow. Regardless of technical correctness, I thought about suggesting that it would read more clearly if you specified "signed" and "unsigned" rather than using "integer" to refer to what programmers refer to as "signed".