Signed word lengths and indexes

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:47:34 -0400, BCS <none at anon.com> wrote:

> Hello Steven,
>
>> This is easily solved - put in a comment.  I frequently put comments
>> in my  code because I know I'm going to forget why I did something.
>
>
> All else being equal, code that *requiters* comments to understand is  
> inferior to code that doesn't.

Code should *always* have comments.  I hate reading code that doesn't have  
comments, it allows you to understand what the person is thinking.

That being said, I don't think this construct requires comments, maybe a  
note like 'uses underflow' or something to let the reader know the writer  
was aware of the issue and did it on purpose, but a comment is not  
essential to understanding the code.

*That* being said, I don't expect to use this construct often.  Typically  
one iterates forwards through an array, and foreach is much better suited  
for iteration anyways.

>> Reading code assuming integer wrapping never occurs is a big mistake.
>> You  should learn to assume wrapping is always possible.
>>
>
> You should learn to write code where I and everyone else doesn't /need/  
> to assume it is possible.

Why?  If you can't understand/spot overflow/underflow problems, then why  
should I cater to you?  It's like lowering academic testing standards for  
school children so they can pass on to the next grade.

>
> (personably, I find it marginally offensive/greedy when someone's first  
> proposal as to how to fix a problem if for the rest of the world to  
> change and the second option is for the person to change.)
>

Why is it offensive if I expect a code reviewer to take overflow into  
consideration when reviewing code?  It's not some sort of snobbery, I just  
expect reviewers to be competent.

-Steve