On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 09:34:35 UTC, JS wrote:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 07:12:07 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 03:47:36 UTC, 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.
Not really, you could instead just write your loop correctly.
1. Don't loop on int, you are handling a size_t.
2. Avoid substractions when handling unsigned.
for(size_t i = 0; i + 1 < s.length; i++)
Problem solved?
Oh sure... problem solved... rriiiighhhtt.....
how about s[i - 1..n]?
You going to go throw some ifs around the statement that uses
that? Use a ternary if? So I'm forced to use a longer more
verbose method, and also introduce bugs, because the most
obvious, simplest, and logical solution, s[max(0, i-1)..n]
won't work.
What about "s[i - 1..n]"? I don't see how having your "i" be
signed save your ass in any shape, way or form. What is your
point?
