Re: Size of bool unspecified: why?

From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: Size of bool unspecified: why?
Date	2011-07-22 11:40 +1200
Message-ID	<98rrmqFroiU8@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <j089to$j9f$1@dont-email.me> <98pp2qFroiU2@mid.individual.net> <j08m2h$ch6$1@dont-email.me> <98q5oiFroiU3@mid.individual.net> <j0acoa$h7u$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/22/11 11:29 AM, JBarleycorn wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 07/21/11 07:56 PM, JBarleycorn wrote:
>>> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com>   wrote :
>>>
>>> The need for fixed-width integers has been proven and therefore they
>>> are in the standard, but then they forget the past and create a new
>>> type and don't consider that width matters for that type. Either
>>> that or they considered it not useful in the situations where the
>>> fixed-width integers are a boon. They should have specified a width,
>>> as the alternative of having multiple booleans of different widths
>>> isn't practical I believe.
>>
>> That argument doesn't make sense, given we have fixed with types, why
>> should the with of any natural type be fixed?  The analogy with int
>> still applies.  If I want a 32 bit signed type, I'll use int32_t.
>> Whether that is an int or a long under the hood is irrelevant.
>>
>>> A header of an application program can check if fixed-width integer
>>> types are what the program expects and if not, then adjustments can
>>> be made, but with bool, whaddaya going to do if the size of bool
>>> doesn't meet the app's expectations?
>>
>> Who often have you needed to know the size of bool?  What do you do if
>> sizeof(int) isn't what the program expects?
>
> Why would anyone expect sizeof(int) to be anything specific? int is not
> an issue. The fixed-width sizes are an issue, but you can test for it and
> do whatever is necessary to maintain consistency.
>
>> You use a different type.
>
> A different numeric type, which there are a number to choose from. Who
> writes a program that doesn't have a header that tests for assumptions
> based upon the platform?

Anyone who is writing for a specific platform, or who doesn't care about 
the sizes of natural types.

>> How is bool different?
>
> If bool doesn't meet your expectations, you don't have the option to
> change to a similar type of different width, because there is no similar
> type of different width. You have to change compilers or something. *Or*,
> avoid bool from the get go noting from the start that you can't rely on
> the width of bool. What the current practice is across a wide variety of
> compilers, or just the "major" ones, I don't know: that would be good
> info and maybe some consolation, but bool does appear to be broken from
> the get go.

OK, give one concrete example where the size of bool matters.

>>> Use an integer of the right size? What's the point of
>>> having a bool at all then if it is likely that some compiler or
>>> version of it doesn't support the needed type?
>>
>> Again, how often is the size of a natural type important?
>
> *Very* often.

So you are writing embedded code or drivers?  There are very few other 
places where the size of type matters.

>>> It seems that any case you make for the width of bool being OK
>>> unspecified, refutes the need for fixed-width integer types, and
>>> vice-versa. Where is the consistency?
>>
>> It isn't unspecified, it is implementation defined, just like int.
>
> The same issue exists with int, *but* there are the alternative
> fixed-width integral types and even when their weren't the fixed-width
> types, there was still enough choice there to get what is desired. I use
> a boolean class, where I can control the width and still get the behavior
> of a boolean,  for use in structs but I have to because built-in bool is
> broken.

You keep staying bool is broken, but you still haven't provided any real 
world examples to back it up.

>>> That insight, as a
>>> practical matter, is what I was looking for. If I was building a
>>> language from scratch and choosing a size for the boolean type, the
>>> performance of that type, as a practical matter, would or might
>>> factor into the design of that type. Similarly, if I was introducing
>>> a boolean type into a language that does not yet have one, I would
>>> consider the same issue.
>>
>> So what would you do if 8 bits performed best on one platform and 32
>> on another?
>
> I would use that information in choosing a design.

How would your design cope with both 8 bit MCUs and 32 bit DSPs (where 
CHAR_BIT = 32)?

>> You would make the size implementation defined.
>
> No, not likely for then bool would be eliminated from a lot of places
> where it could be used to good effect.

Please name one.

-- 
Ian Collins

Thread

Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 05:33 -0500
  Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 10:02 -0700
    Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 13:05 -0700
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 15:46 -0500
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 09:01 +1200
          Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 19:32 -0500
            Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 14:46 +1200
              Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-20 23:28 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 16:43 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 02:56 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 20:19 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 18:29 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:40 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 22:33 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 15:46 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 23:07 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 16:12 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-31 18:45 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:12 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:10 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 16:52 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 09:55 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:01 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:17 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 10:46 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-24 03:48 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-24 12:40 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 11:22 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach:usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-07-31 02:33 +0200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 11:34 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach:usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-07-25 04:46 +0200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:23 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 18:52 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:24 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:22 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-23 10:51 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:17 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-22 04:26 -0500
            Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 02:09 -0700
              Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:11 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 11:58 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:48 -0500
            Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-21 08:41 -0700
              Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:14 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:01 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 17:51 -0500
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-07-20 16:57 -0700
          Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:29 -0700
            Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:24 -0500
              Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:33 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 22:42 -0500
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 01:59 -0700
          Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:42 -0500
            Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:20 -0700
              Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-22 18:21 -0500
  Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-16 22:23 -0500
    Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 00:07 -0500
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-17 17:15 +1200
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 00:24 -0500
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-17 02:02 -0500
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 03:02 -0500
          Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-17 03:23 -0500
            Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 05:36 -0500
              Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-07-17 16:24 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:49 -0500
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-07-18 16:46 -0700
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-19 11:59 +1200
                Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-19 22:18 -0500
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 03:04 -0500
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:32 -0700
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-22 00:41 -0700
  Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-07-17 13:50 +0000
    Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:50 -0500
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 13:06 -0700
    Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? Pawel Dziepak <pdziepak@quarnos.org> - 2011-07-21 12:59 +0000
      Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:11 -0700
        Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> - 2011-07-21 19:21 -0500
          Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 12:28 -0700

csiph-web