In the [Google C++ Style Guide][1], on the topic of &quot;Unsigned Integers&quot;, it is suggested that

&gt; Because of historical accident, the C++ standard also uses unsigned integers to represent the size of containers - many members of the standards body believe this to be a mistake, but it is effectively impossible to fix at this point. The fact that unsigned arithmetic doesn&#39;t model the behavior of a simple integer, but is instead defined by the standard to model modular arithmetic (wrapping around on overflow/underflow), means that a significant class of bugs cannot be diagnosed by the compiler. 

What is wrong with modular arithmetic? Isn&#39;t that the expected behaviour of an unsigned int?

What kind of bugs (a significant class) does the guide refer to? Overflowing bugs?

&gt;Do not use an unsigned type merely to assert that a variable is non-negative.

One reason that I can think of using signed int over unsigned int, is that if it does overflow (to negative), it is easier to detect.

  [1]: https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Integer_Types



All Google Style-Guide Solutions on Gang of Coders

Total of 1 Google Style-Guide Solutions

Is using an unsigned rather than signed int more likely to cause bugs? Why?