Sometimes I'll need an array of 4 ints, so I'll define one:
int a[4] = {1,2,3,4};
other times I'll want 4 bytes. So sure, I can write:
char a[4] = {'A','B','C','D'};
However, (I hope) I'll get the exact same compiler warning as the more readable:
char a[4] = "ABCD";
that does the exact same. So I'll need the __nonstring__ anyway. And then why not use the more readable syntax, since I'm telling the compiler and reader explicitly that I don't want a null terminator?
The core issue is C's habit of using the exact same language construct for different purposes, here char[] for both uint8_array and null_terminated_str.
> However, (I hope) I'll get the exact same compiler warning as the more readable:
The latter is a null terminated string, the former is not. Compiler warnings are principally a set of heuristics for bad code. Heuristically the first example is more likely to be intentional than the latter.
Your char a[4] is not more readable and sooner or later you'll get screwed by strlen(a) or some such. It's quite telling that the construct is not legal in c++.
Why would I run strlen() on the second one but not on the first one? Presumably I know that I defined an array of chars and not a cstring? Or if I forget, couldn't I forget in the first case too? Once I defined it, they're both just char[4]s.
Sometimes I'll need an array of 4 ints, so I'll define one:
other times I'll want 4 bytes. So sure, I can write: However, (I hope) I'll get the exact same compiler warning as the more readable: that does the exact same. So I'll need the __nonstring__ anyway. And then why not use the more readable syntax, since I'm telling the compiler and reader explicitly that I don't want a null terminator?The core issue is C's habit of using the exact same language construct for different purposes, here char[] for both uint8_array and null_terminated_str.