0x100000 vs 0x100008

In quite a few systems now I've seen the number "0x100000" supposedly represent the smallest handle ID, but isn't it 0x100008?

We had a thread on this...go search...no one's going to go and do all that work again (I hope).

BJ creates some handles.

Can someone pls elaborate what those 0x120134 notations mean?

0x notation. Google. Your friend. Is.

'0x' indicates that the following nubmer is notated in hexadecimal (0-9A-F).

When you're subtracting the lowest handle value from arbitrary handles to use them as array indexes (which is the only use I've seen for those magic numbers), a difference of 8 is irrelevant.

So, my question to you is, who gives a shit?

A difference of 8 can make a big difference if you accidentally reference SomeArray[-7]. Woops! Proper coding fixes that issue, though.

If you ever manage to either underflow a unsigned integer which is an array index, or move in to the negatives on a signed integer array index, then you completely and utterly fail at coding, which means you will leak memory like crazy, get more than 8191 handles, and have no room left in an array, making the "trick" of using handle IDs as array indexes worthless to you in the first place.

So, in other words, that was an utterly pointless comment, Dusk.

You've never made a map, so I don't actually expect you to understand. Overflowing arrays by subtracting 0x100000 to get a usable value is very possible if you're not careful. Or maybe you'd rather I just admit that I "completely and utterly fail at coding."
Your response sure stands as a paragon for me to follow in the future!

Never released a map. There's a difference between having never made something, and having never made something that lives up to my unreasonably high expectations.
The word "abrasive" has been used to describe your personality before. I prefer the term "cheese grater".

Doing it the first time on a lightning is far different then doing it with any normally allocated handle type, which I've never seen below 0x100000, barring 0x0, which is a test you should always do. (Java tends to throw NullPointerException 's when you don't, as an example.)

Not really, no.

I can't think of anything more abrasive than a cheese grater. If I do, be assured that it will come up next time we argue.

null is 0x100000.

I like cheese. You're just a big silly with a big mouth is all. I don't have a cutesy name for you, but I'll try to think of one for the next time you try to sound smart. Enjoi! :)

I prefer the term "Cassielesque."

Hulk Smash this utterly off-topic thread....

Dusk = comes across mean more often then he intends to
Cassiel = down right maniacal
Fury = hopelessly argumentative

end story