On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 12:43 PM Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> 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.