is a pretty terrible example to put in the second chapter. I would not let that line pass code review. There is no need or place for cutesy cleverness in C.
EDIT: Ugh, just found this too:
isset[!!largeA[i]] += 1;
Not only is that confusingly cutesy, but largeA[i] is a double. Please DON'T write – or encourage beginners to write! – such smug code!
EDIT2: In section 5 is the statement than unsigned integers "can be optimized best." This is flatly untrue on x86 and I suspect many other architectures. Compilers can and do take advantage of undefined signed overflow to optimize signed arithmetic; the same is not possible with unsigned arithmetic. See https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-undefined-signed-o...
EDIT: Ugh, just found this too:
Not only is that confusingly cutesy, but largeA[i] is a double. Please DON'T write – or encourage beginners to write! – such smug code!EDIT2: In section 5 is the statement than unsigned integers "can be optimized best." This is flatly untrue on x86 and I suspect many other architectures. Compilers can and do take advantage of undefined signed overflow to optimize signed arithmetic; the same is not possible with unsigned arithmetic. See https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-undefined-signed-o...