I disagree, I prefer using 'std::ssize'/'std::ranges::ssize' because I want
to have it always signed. There seems to be a strong consensus that
std::size_t should had been signed from the beginning.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025, 17:23 Yexuan Xiao via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Why is it allowed to return a signed integer? C++ users are accustomed to
> the fact that the size_type of containers is an unsigned integer, so the
> size of containers should also return an unsigned integer. sizes that
> return negative numbers are pathological and cannot be used. The current
> specification forces writers of generic algorithms to convert the result to
> unsigned on every call to ranges::size, which is something ranges::size
> should have taken care of. If they don't do this, the compiler will
> complain about signed and unsigned mismatches. C++20 also added
> ranges::ssize, which always returns a signed integer. If generic algorithms
> prefer signed integers, they can use ranges::ssize. Therefore, it makes no
> sense for `ranges::size` to preserve the signedness of the return type of
> containers' size. Does C++ need ranges::usize? I believe the answer is
> clearly no. If C++ doesn't fix ranges::size in a timely manner, perhaps one
> day users will invent ranges::usize themselves and then tell others not to
> use ranges::size.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>