> I have to admit, I did not understand your earlier comment until just now. From the number of downvotes, I think it was mis-parsed by several HN readers. Thi

> I have to admit, I did not understand your earlier comment until just now. From the number of downvotes, I think it was mis-parsed by several HN readers. This happens to me quite often, on many a website, but I have no inkling why. > Sorry about the code change, the first version was from an old memory and the new version is what happened after I stared at it for a while No worries, I thought the original slice of code that you posted was more interesting and novel, it wouldn't have occurred to me off the top of my head. > Primitive values are automatically initialized to 0 in C. I had to look that up, good old Stack Overflow has again furnished us with an explanation. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10089551/what-are-primitive-types-default-initialized-to-in-c http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10089551/what-are-primiti...