3 ms·
I'd argue that is a terrible way to write it since it depends on the rollover to terminate. Using i >= 0 is less mental work but also requires that i be signed.
by phkahler 4y ago
I'd argue that is a terrible way to write it since it depends on the rollover to terminate. Using i >= 0 is less mental work but also requires that i be signed.
- ghoward 4y agoRollover on unsigned ints is well-defined in C.
- hbn 4y agoI think their point is that it's less well defined in the average human's brain When most people see 0 - 1 they don't immediately think 11111111111111111111111111111111
- xdavidliu 4y agoif we used i >= 0 and someone were to come in and change "int i" to "unsigned i" or "size_t i", the result would be catastrophic
- Leherenn 4y agoThe same argument can be applied to GP's code with the added bonus it will cause UB at some point.