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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7132

Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/27/2011 12:21 PM, Matthias Arndt wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I heard an opinion on the use of the | operator together with C99
> conform bool types (stdbool.h)
> 
> My discussion partner stated that
> _Bool a, b;
> ......
> a | b;
> 
> should be forbidden and a || b should be used instead.
> 
> I personally can't see the difference for true boolean types (which
> would be *implementation* specific, but let's assume an embedded
> compiler with a true bool type that maps to a real bit.)

His assertion that it "should be forbidden" is somewhat ambiguous. If
he's suggesting that you should be forbidden to write that, because it
is not permitted in C99, he's wrong. However, he could also be
suggesting that, while it is currently permitted, it should not be.

If so, then he might be talking about the idea, which has frequently
been discussed, that it was a mistake for C to conflate arithmetic and
boolean values the way that it does. I tend to agree, but it's not
feasible to change that aspect of C without breaking a LOT of code
(including most of mine: since C does conflate them, I make heavy use of
that fact in my code).

To make this idea clearer, let me outline how a new C-like language that
implemented this idea would differ from C:
* in C, _Bool is a standard unsigned integer type. As such, it is also a
member of the several other type categories: "unsigned", "standard",
"integer", "basic", "real", "arithmetic", "scalar", and "object". In
this new language, _Bool would only be a member of the last two of those
type categories.
* All relational and equality comparisons result in a _Bool value, even
in #if expressions.
* All of the following are constrained to be of type _Bool:
	- The operands of all logical operators (!, &&, ||)
	- The first operand of ?:
	- The condition in if(), while() and do while() statements
	- The condition in #if directives.
* There are no conversions, implicit or explicit, permitted between
_Bool and other types. The equivalent of converting scalar_value to
_Bool can be performed by "scalar_value==0", and the equivalent of
conversion from _Bool can be performed by "boolean_value ? 1 : 0".
* Values of type _Bool are not implicitly promoted to 'int'.

In such a language, a|b would be an error, because bitwise-or requires
that it's operands have integer type. If you actually needed to express
the same idea, you could write (a?1:0)|(b?1:0), or (a||b)?1:0. Yes,
those expressions are clumsier - but that's precisely the point: the
increased clumsiness is supposed to make it easier for you to stop and
think "does it really make sense to do this?" - the answer will often be
"No". The idea is that things which often make sense should be easier to
write than things that do not usually make sense.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

Thread

| vs || operator on C99 bool types Matthias Arndt <marndt@asmsoftware.de> - 2011-06-27 16:21 +0000
  Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 13:38 -0400
  Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-27 21:51 -0400
    Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-28 16:16 +0000
      [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-28 20:35 -0400
        Re: [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 21:33 +0000
          Re: [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 10:58 -0700
            Re: [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 18:57 +0000
              Re: [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-01 12:53 -0700
                Re: [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 18:27 +0000
                Re: [OT] Genderangement [Was: Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types] Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 20:53 -0700
      Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:34 -0700
        Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-03 08:25 -0400
          Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types gordonb.pbl6v@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-03 18:23 -0500
  Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 07:21 -0400
    Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-28 08:24 -0400
      Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Matthias Arndt <marndt@asmsoftware.de> - 2011-06-28 16:11 +0000
  Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-28 16:37 -0700
    Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:41 -0700
      Re: | vs || operator on C99 bool types Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-03 15:02 -0700

csiph-web