[operator-name]

In that specific case I'd do the following:

    for (size_t i = n; i-- > 0 ;) ...

Or count from `length` to 1, but subtract 1 in the loop body, or count up and subtract the length in the loop body. Any modern compiler should be able to optimise these to be equivalent.

In the majority of cases, counting down is not necessarily. Nor is ordered iteration. Most languages have a `for each` style syntax that's preferable anyway.

[cylon13]

Ah yes, the goes-to operator -->

[tomjakubowski]

And the wink operator, so the compiler knows you know the deal

[bmacho]

I like how GP is called "operator-name" and instead of doing himself, he makes others joking with operator names. Although I'm not sure if it's altruism or highly manipulative behaviour.

[wizofaus]

Gold - have an upvote!

[divbzero]

Or alternatively:

  size_t i = length;
  while (i--) ...

[jecel]

Unless I am remembering C wrong, this would work but the

   for (size_t i = length; i-- > 0 ; ) ...

that several other people posted would not execute for index 0. Shouldn't it be this instead?

   for (size_t i = length; --i > 0 ; ) ...