On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:49:06PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > + for (r = &rules[0]; r <= &rules[LENGTH(rules) - 1]; r++) {
The `&a[n]` construct always looks silly to me; it could've simply been
`a + n`:
for (r = rules + 0; r < rules + LENGTH(rules); ++r)
And `+ 0` is oviously retarded so after removing that you get this,
which is much cleaner and noise free:
for (r = rules; r < rules + LENGTH(rules); ++r)
- NRK
