On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 03:58:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/21/2013 08:47 PM, JS wrote:
> Doing simple stuff like
>
> for(int i = 0; i < s.length - 1; i++) fails catastrophically
if s is
> empty. To make right one has to reduce performance by writing
extra checks.
Checks are needed for program correctness. If not in source
code, in compiler generated code, or the microprocessor itself.
The compiler and the microprocessor would not do such things
for performance reasons. It is because sometimes only the
programmer knows that the check is unnecessary.
> There seems to be no real good reason why size_t is
unsigned...
How about, every addressable memory locations must be countable?
for strings themselves, I would prefer an int to be returned. The
size of a string has nothing to do with it's location in memory.
> Surely one doesn't require too many strings larger than 2^63
bits on an x64
> os...
Agreed.
> I running into a lot of trouble because of the way D deals
with implicit
> casting of between signed and unsigned.
D is behaving the same way as C and C++ there.
No, surely not... Well, at least, I never had this trouble in C#.
> please don't tell me to use foreach... isn't not a panacea.
I would still prefer foreach because it is more convenient and
safer because of needing less code.
Ali
foreach doesn't allow you to modify the index to skip over
elements.
