> for (size_t i = size - 1; i < size; i--) typing i < size instead of i >= 0 > and casting the wrap-around behavior into stone doesn't seem like a good > idea... The article is not very convincing, "just learn these N subtle > patterns and apply them consistently everywhere" has been proven again and > again not to work.
It sure doesn't if you're supposed to do it by hand. If Nim indexing used unsigneds and you could write `for container.items().rev()` which would use the appropriate checks or "insert conditions around these instructions" then it would work just fine. ;)
