|
|
|
|
|
|
by astrange
1713 days ago
|
|
|
That's a strange example since it doesn't prove their point. "int count; … for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i) {}" can't overflow so the optimization is always valid. "int count; … for (int i = 0; i < count; i += 2) {}" is more of a problem. I don't think "have a 64-bit int type" is the right approach for a new language either… we should be aiming for safety. If a variable's valid values are 0-50 then its type should be "integer between 0 and 50", not "integer between 0 and UINT64_MAX". Storage size should be an implementation detail. |
|
|
Look for the "range" keyword