Signed word lengths and indexes

[BCS]

Hello Steven,

> 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.

I agree. It should have comments. But if stripping them out would render 
the code unmaintainable, that indicates to me that it's likely the code is 
to complex. It's a sliding scale, the more difference the comments make, 
the more of an issue it is. And again, this is an "all else being equal" 
case; given two option and nothing else to chose between them, I'll pick 
the one that needs fewer comments.

>>> 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.

The way peoples brains are wired, the first thought people will have about 
that code is wrong. If that can be avoided, why not avoid it?

> 
>> (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

That's /not/ offensive. For one thing, only very few people will ever need 
to be involved in that. The reason I wouldn't let it pass code review has 
zero to do with me not understanding it (I do understand for one thing) but 
has 100% with anyone who ever needs to touch the code needing to understand 
it. That is an open set (and that is why I find it marginally offensive). 
The cost of putting something in your code that is harder (note I'm not saying 
"hard") to understand goes up the more successful the code is and is effectively 
unbounded.

> It's not some sort of snobbery, I
> just  expect reviewers to be competent.

I expect that to. I also expect people reading my code (for review or what-not) 
to have better things to do with their time than figure out clever code.

-- 
... <IXOYE><