On Sunday, August 24, 2014, Bardur Arantsson &lt;<a href="mailto:spam@scientician.net">spam@scientician.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 2014-08-24 17:27, Johan Tibell wrote:<br>
&gt; On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Ben Millwood &lt;<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;haskell@benmachine.co.uk&#39;)">haskell@benmachine.co.uk</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; What&#39;s left? To those enthusiastically +1-ing this proposal, how will it<br>
&gt;&gt; improve your lives?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Unsigned fixed-width integers appear everywhere in programming and<br>
&gt; algorithms. Haskell is to my knowledge the only language that doesn&#39;t<br>
&gt; expose such a type next to its signed version.<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
Java is a notable exception here. Usually the omission leads to pain,<br>
but it has to be said that it&#39;s mostly just when interfacing with C<br>
and/or in parsing binary formats.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Python, JavaScript, Erlang, Ruby, Lua are other exceptions that do not have built-in fixed width wrap-around integer types or unsigned numbers of any kind.</div><div><br></div><div>Parsing isn&#39;t a problem, wraparound is usually emulated with bitwise and. Gets ugly.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-bob</div>