Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool |
| Date | 2012-04-27 15:32 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <4F9AF44F.3040307@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <jncspr$on8$1@dont-email.me> <jncuh1$ls$1@dont-email.me> <jnd0fk$8vk$1@dont-email.me> <jndsiu$60v$1@dont-email.me> <slrnjploaa.bth.willem@toad.stack.nl> |
On 04/27/2012 02:11 PM, Willem wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > ) On 04/26/2012 10:32 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: > )> The question that burns in my feeble brain is: "Why?" What is > )> the benefit that a "No arithmetic on booleans" rule would bring? > ) > ) It makes syntax errors out of constructs that are conceptually > ) meaningless, forcing the use of alternative constructs that say more > ) precisely what is actually going on. As such, it makes it easier to > ) detect erroneous constructs. > > It also makes syntax errors out of constructs that are perfectly > meaningful, forcing the use of needless extra boilerplate code > that only serves to muddle what is actually going on. I deny the fundamental meaningfullness of any code that treats a logical value as if it were numeric. What does true*3+false mean? It has a specific numeric meaning, one that almost any C programmer would know - but only because C arbitrarily gave it that meaning, not because it has any inherent meaning. It's intrinsically meaningless to multiply a truth value by 3.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 08:40 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-23 12:07 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-03-23 21:45 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-23 17:17 -0500
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-03-23 23:29 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:48 +1300
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-03-24 23:47 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-03-25 09:05 +0000
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-25 11:30 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-25 21:05 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2012-03-25 16:15 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-25 22:14 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-25 23:46 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-26 12:05 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2012-03-26 15:22 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 11:44 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-03-25 13:06 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-27 11:12 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-24 01:15 -0500
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-03-24 23:29 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 09:53 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-27 11:07 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-27 14:16 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-26 07:57 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-04-26 14:08 +0200
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-26 09:09 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-26 21:29 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-26 21:58 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-26 22:32 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-27 06:31 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr> - 2012-04-27 19:26 +0200
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-04-27 11:28 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr> - 2012-04-27 20:51 +0200
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 12:17 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-04-28 09:17 +0200
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-04-28 13:26 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-27 18:11 +0000
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 12:05 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-27 15:32 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-04-27 20:16 +0000
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-04-27 16:45 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 21:26 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-04-27 21:18 -0400
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 21:33 +0100
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-04-27 15:36 -0700
Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 08:31 -0700
csiph-web