[sp332]

I have to admit, I did not understand your earlier comment until just now.

Sorry about the code change, the first version was from an old memory and the new version is what happened after I stared at it for a while :) Primitive values are automatically initialized to 0 in C. As for the ratio, it will probably just give a good approximation of 1 as a gets large! Also if you have a good square root function, you can use it to find a Fibonacci number in constant time, so your ratio will always be 1 (until the square root is too big to be computed in a single instruction).

[mattst88]

> Primitive values are automatically initialized to 0 in C.

No, they're not. Automatic variables without an initializer have an indeterminate value. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6212921/is-un-initialized...

[NAFV_P]

> I have to admit, I did not understand your earlier comment until just now.

From the number of downvotes, I think it was mis-parsed by several HN readers. This happens to me quite often, on many a website, but I have no inkling why.

> Sorry about the code change, the first version was from an old memory and the new version is what happened after I stared at it for a while

No worries, I thought the original slice of code that you posted was more interesting and novel, it wouldn't have occurred to me off the top of my head.

> Primitive values are automatically initialized to 0 in C.

I had to look that up, good old Stack Overflow has again furnished us with an explanation.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10089551/what-are-primiti...

[sp332]

Oh, C, C++, what's the difference. (D'oh!)

[NAFV_P]

One of the reasons I stick to old C, less confusion.