On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 09:00:47 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
On Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 08:26:42 UTC, Guillaume Chatelet wrote:
From the programmer's point of view the original code makes sense.
A correct lowering would be:

ubyte[256] data;
for(ubyte i = 0;;++i) {
   ubyte x = data[i];
   ...
   if(i==255) break;
}

or:

ubyte[256] data;
foreach(ubyte i; 0..256) {
  ubyte x = data[i];
}
        

Yes. Much better. What's the rewrite in this case? Using a size_t internally and casting to ubyte?

Reply via email to