Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:11:22 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <slrnjploaa.bth.willem@toad.stack.nl>
References: <jki5iu$jea$1@dont-email.me> <jkinde$or2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jksrbo$p2a$1@dont-email.me> <jnbd7q$17a$1@dont-email.me> <jnbhej$ovn$1@dont-email.me> <jncspr$on8$1@dont-email.me> <jncuh1$ls$1@dont-email.me> <jnd0fk$8vk$1@dont-email.me> <jndsiu$60v$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toad.stack.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: mud.stack.nl 1335550282 44778 2001:610:1108:5010::135 (27 Apr 2012 18:11:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@stack.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:11:22 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:20002

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.

The boundary between the two is purely a matter of taste.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT