Using scientific notation in for loops

Solution 1:

The elephant in the room here is that the range of an int could be as small as -32767 to +32767, and the behaviour on assigning a larger value than this to such an int is undefined.

But, as for your main point, indeed it should concern you as it is a very bad habit. Things could go wrong as yes, 1e7 is a floating point double type.

The fact that i will be converted to a floating point due to type promotion rules is somewhat moot: the real damage is done if there is unexpected truncation of the apparent integral literal. By the way of a "proof by example", consider first the loop

for (std::uint64_t i = std::numeric_limits<std::uint64_t>::max() - 1024; i ++< 18446744073709551615ULL; ){
    std::cout << i << "\n";
}

This outputs every consecutive value of i in the range, as you'd expect. Note that std::numeric_limits<std::uint64_t>::max() is 18446744073709551615ULL, which is 1 less than the 64th power of 2. (Here I'm using a slide-like "operator" ++< which is useful when working with unsigned types. Many folk consider --> and ++< as obfuscating but in scientific programming they are common, particularly -->.)

Now on my machine, a double is an IEEE754 64 bit floating point. (Such as scheme is particularly good at representing powers of 2 exactly - IEEE754 can represent powers of 2 up to 1022 exactly.) So 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (the 64th power of 2) can be represented exactly as a double. The nearest representable number before that is 18,446,744,073,709,550,592 (which is 1024 less).

So now let's write the loop as

for (std::uint64_t i = std::numeric_limits<std::uint64_t>::max() - 1024; i ++< 1.8446744073709551615e19; ){
    std::cout << i << "\n";         
}

On my machine that will only output one value of i: 18,446,744,073,709,550,592 (the number that we've already seen). This proves that 1.8446744073709551615e19 is a floating point type. If the compiler was allowed to treat the literal as an integral type then the output of the two loops would be equivalent.

Solution 2:

It will work, assuming that your int is at least 32 bits.

However, if you really want to use exponential notation, you should better define an integer constant outside the loop and use proper casting, like this:

const int MAX_INDEX = static_cast<int>(1.0e7);
...
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_INDEX; i++) {
    ...
}

Considering this, I'd say it is much better to write

const int  MAX_INDEX = 10000000;

or if you can use C++14

const int  MAX_INDEX = 10'000'000;

Solution 3:

1e7 is a literal of type double, and usually double is 64-bit IEEE 754 format with a 52-bit mantissa. Roughly every tenth power of 2 corresponds to a third power of 10, so double should be able to represent integers up to at least 10^5*3 = 10¹⁵, exactly. And if int is 32-bit then int has roughly 10^3*3 = 10⁹ as max value (asking Google search it says that "2**31 - 1" = 2 147 483 647, i.e. twice the rough estimate).

So, in practice it's safe on current desktop systems and larger.

But C++ allows int to be just 16 bits, and on e.g. an embedded system with that small int, one would have Undefined Behavior.

Solution 4:

If the intention to loop for a exact integer number of iterations, for example if iterating over exactly all the elements in an array then comparing against a floating point value is maybe not such a good idea, solely for accuracy reasons; since the implicit cast of an integer to float will truncate integers toward zero there's no real danger of out-of-bounds access, it will just abort the loop short.

Now the question is: When do these effects actually kick in? Will your program experience them? The floating point representation usually used these days is IEEE 754. As long as the exponent is 0 a floating point value is essentially an integer. C double precision floats 52 bits for the mantissa, which gives you integer precision to a value of up to 2^52, which is in the order of about 1e15. Without specifying with a suffix f that you want a floating point literal to be interpreted single precision the literal will be double precision and the implicit conversion will target that as well. So as long as your loop end condition is less 2^52 it will work reliably!

Now one question you have to think about on the x86 architecture is efficiency. The very first 80x87 FPUs came in a different package, and later a different chip and as aresult getting values into the FPU registers is a bit awkward on the x86 assembly level. Depending on what your intentions are it might make the difference in runtime for a realtime application; but that's premature optimization.

TL;DR: Is it safe to to? Most certainly yes. Will it cause trouble? It could cause numerical problems. Could it invoke undefined behavior? Depends on how you use the loop end condition, but if i is used to index an array and for some reason the array length ended up in a floating point variable always truncating toward zero it's not going to cause a logical problem. Is it a smart thing to do? Depends on the application.