On Apr 14, 2014 11:52 AM, "Dave Rutherford" <d...@evilpettingzoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, David Binderman <dcb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Anyone experienced looking at the code will always need to examine it
> > more closely to find out why it's a good idea in this case to use an
array
> > index and *then* sanity check it's value.
>
> But in this case it's a limiting check, not a bounds check,
> and having it second helps to make this clear. I agree that
> the bug lies in the static analyzer.
>
Using a well named constant instead of a magic value would help document
the intent.
