Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #20021

Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool

Show all headers | View raw

Am 04/27/2012 08:28 PM, schrieb Keith Thompson:
> - bool is treated as a scalar but non-numeric type
> - Each enumerated type is treated as a scalar but non-numeric type
>   (bool could be a special-case enumerated type, with false and true as
>   enumerated constants)
> 
> - No implicit conversions between numeric and non-numeric types (but
>   casts work as in C)

I don't see any good reason to forbid conversions *to* bool.

While I can image the confusion that was at the origin of this thread
of using bool in arithmetic, the converse rules how to interpret
numeric and pointer types in a boolean context are nice and clean.

Also I don't think that the current conversion rules for integer types
are ideal, since they are inconsistent between the preprocessor phase
and the rest of the compilation. Why not just have all integer
arithmetic happen in intmax_t or uintmax_t (and let the optimizer do a
bit of work if it can be proven that smaller types can be proven to be
sufficient) ?

> - 0 is not a null pointer constant; instead, there's a keyword (say,
>   "nil") that is the language's *only* null pointer constant

I don't see the value of this either. The problem in C is not with 0
(and other values) as a null pointer constant but with the
underspecification of NULL.

Having a catch-all initializer for all data types is quite convenient,
I would miss that.

> - Relational and equality operators yield bool results
> 
> - Contexts that require conditions (if, for, while, do-while, !, &&, ||,
>   ?:, and whatever else I've forgotten) require a bool expression
> 
> Some implications:
> 
> - The NULL macro is unnecessary, and is replaced by the nil keyword.

this would be a good one, why not call it nullptr to keep it in sync
with C++ ? And in current C an identifier that is forced to the value
(void*)0 would perfectly play that role.

> - You'd have to write "if (num != 0)" rather than "if (num)".
> 
> - You'd have to write "if (ptr != nil)" rather than "if (ptr)".

I personally wouldn't like that one

> - There are undoubtedly more implications that would have to be worked
>   out.

I'd add another thing to that list: unprototyped functions. They are
particularly bad because of the lack of pointer conversion for their
arguments.

One could enforce an implicit conversion rule to void* for them, with
the consequence that passing an `int const*` to an unspecific
parameter wouldn't compile at all, or just forbid unprototyped
functions completely. I would prefer the later, I think, with the
consequence of also banning va_arg functions.

Jens

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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