Sherclod Holmes @wallhackio@cat.family

@vaporeon_ some people don't like the ++ shit because it leads people to make logical errors, which I will admit just happened to me in the recent holly for loop hellthread

@vaporeon_ += 1 more reason I prefer javascript to python

@vaporeon_ @aescling @monorail also this thread makes me certain that "I'm not sure I would give enough of a shit in a code review because either way would look Weird" was the right answer all along

@vaporeon_ @aescling @monorail yeah that's what i would do (actually I would do ++idx, ++i but it objectively doesn't matter)

@monorail @aescling this thread is justifying my current software unemployment

@aescling @monorail oh you're so right actually looooooooooooooooooooooool

@aescling @monorail it would increment by 1 with idx += ++i.

@monorail my genuine reaction to this information:

@vaporeon_ @monorail my laptop screen broke :(

@monorail anyway I was nice and comfy in my bed and this made me get up to use my computer so every one of my followers better favorite this

@monorail probably should be ++i. oh well!

@vaporeon_

@monorail here's my final answer:

let i = 0;
for (
  let idx = currentSignal.length;
  i < matches[0].length && matches[0][idx] === matches.at(-1)[idx];
  idx += i++
);

@vaporeon_ I was not aware of this feature!

Apparently you can create "labelled statements" for anything considered a "statement", for which I believe include for, while, switch, and if/else if/else

@vaporeon_ it would be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160507105653/http://summerofgoto.com/js/goto.js

@vaporeon_ after a little searching someone in 2009 made a preprocessor for the language that adds goto but the library can only be found in an internet archive page and the internet archive is currently down

@vaporeon_ nope

@vaporeon_ @alas oh I wouldn't have thought to do it with a do while, this is neat

my evil code golfing brain wants the i++ snuck into the previous line but that kind of thing tends to get you in trouble

by the way you also need i<matches[0].length in the conditional

@aescling @vaporeon_ whenever I end up writing something like that I tend to convert it to a while loop but that's just a style thing