constant literal on LHS of conditional operator

[Sharke]

I was just wondering - I see things like this a lot in other people's code:

assert(0 <= index);

And I was just wondering, why write it like this, when the meaning of:

assert(index >= 0);

...is so much more immediately apparent? Is there some reasoning behind this style, or are they just trying to be clever?

[laserlight]

The idea is that if you make a mistake by performing an assignment instead:

assert(0 = index);

you would get a compile error.

The weakness is that since this only applies when an rvalue or const lvalue is involved, it is no guarantee of protection.

[Sharke]

I see! Thanks.

[cpjust]

I let the compiler find those errors for me.