@EthanBierlein @cmuratori @Jonathan_Blow hmm, in my lang: "arr=(new int[256])-1;" then 1 is the first index... "arr--;" would also work...
-
-
Replying to @cr88192
@cr88192 @EthanBierlein@Jonathan_Blow That's what I said in the first post (keep the pointer to the base pointing one element behind).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori @EthanBierlein@Jonathan_Blow granted, but here is due to array offsetting rather than support for explicit 1-based arrays...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cr88192
@cmuratori @EthanBierlein@Jonathan_Blow ex: a mechanism designed to preserve some of the "look and feel" of C pointer math, but "safer"...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cr88192
@cr88192@cmuratori @EthanBierlein@Jonathan_Blow I'd expect array access to dominate array creation so -1 on creation seems negligible.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@kroslakma @cr88192 @EthanBierlein @Jonathan_Blow Yeah that is not the concern here, I'm just asking what the plan was.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.