You’re right, that’s what I get for not having written a line of C in what 15 years. Bonus challenge: write foriini32::MIN..=i32::MAX in C, that is, iterate over the whole range, start and end inclusive.
(I guess the ..= might be where my confusion came from because Rust’s .. is end-exclusive and thus like <, but also not what you want because i32::MAX + 1 panics).
Would you be bold enough to write if (i++ == INT_MAX) break? The result of the increment is never used, but an increment is being done, at least syntactically, and it overflows, at least theoretically, so maybe (I’m not 100% sure) the compiler could be allowed to break out into song because undefined behaviour allows anything to happen.
You’re right, that’s what I get for not having written a line of C in what 15 years. Bonus challenge: write
for i in i32::MIN..=i32::MAX
in C, that is, iterate over the whole range, start and end inclusive.(I guess the
..=
might be where my confusion came from because Rust’s..
is end-exclusive and thus like<
, but also not what you want becausei32::MAX + 1
panics).for (int i = INT_MIN; ; i++) { ... if (i == INT_MAX) break;}
Would you be bold enough to write
if (i++ == INT_MAX) break
? The result of the increment is never used, but an increment is being done, at least syntactically, and it overflows, at least theoretically, so maybe (I’m not 100% sure) the compiler could be allowed to break out into song because undefined behaviour allows anything to happen.