On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:43 PM Florian Weimer <fw_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> * JF Bastien:
>
> >>> Thanks. Please change the name of the proposal. Its contents is
> >>> fine, but it doesn't really deliver two's complement signed integers.
>
> > I’ll consider your request if you also provide a rationale for it.
>
> Personally, I strongly associate two's complement integers with the
> usual wraparound behavior and the lack of padding bits and trap
> representations.
>
Sounds like an opinion. I’d rather not bikeshed names based on opinion,
especially given the preceding discussions of the paper. Sounds like you
got 2/3 if what you feel like you want, and you also got representation and
value range for free. Happy to hear solid arguments otherwise.