I agree. This type of bug seems like it should have been thought of when it was first written, or at least caught during a code review.
However, it's very possible that this was written a decade ago, and even if someone did the example conversion at the time to 1,201,011,234 it wouldn't trigger that "magic number spidey-sense" like a number that's closer to 2.1 billion normally would.
In fact for all we know there's a comment next to it:
Comments
I agree. This type of bug seems like it should have been thought of when it was first written, or at least caught during a code review.
However, it's very possible that this was written a decade ago, and even if someone did the example conversion at the time to 1,201,011,234 it wouldn't trigger that "magic number spidey-sense" like a number that's closer to 2.1 billion normally would.
In fact for all we know there's a comment next to it: