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?