was checking their manual and found this, what do you think?
great idea
or
worst programmer nightmare
Julia
Justin Green
Other urls found in this thread:
cs.utexas.edu
twitter.com
Logan Robinson
in terms of efficiency it's based and redpilled unlike python.
Christian Adams
Dumb idea. "on modern computers"? What about my chink RISC-clone toaster CPU, you lazy fucks? I bet they are just lazy and use the default hardware behavior. Correct me if they actually manually perform that wrap-around.
Jaxson Thompson
Manual wrap around is never done. catch-all overflows are a nightmare in performance and execution controll.
Ryan Gray
Based and mathpilled
Jack Miller
The most retarded shit I've seen today
Grayson King
>ITT: Codemonkeys that don't understand 2's complement
Jayden Lewis
The most retarded shit I've seen today
Ian Phillips
It's just C dogma because C standard (usage of twos complement is not guaranteed) makes shitton of behavior undefined regardless of being defined on all CPUs ever as the same instructions are used for signed and unsigned arithmetics.
This is kinda nightmare for logic-based optimization since x + 1 is no longer guaranteed to be greater than x, breaks all sorts of inductive proofs.
Hard to say. The formally correct way is to have separate type for non-wrapping integer and wrapping integer, but this is clunky as fuck.
Noah Garcia
>This is kinda nightmare for logic-based optimization since x + 1 is no longer guaranteed to be greater than x, breaks all sorts of inductive proofs.
not if you add strict bounds on variables you don't want to wrap around