Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #8076
| From | "JBarleycorn" <jbnh2o@newsnet.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Size of bool unspecified: why? |
| Date | 2011-07-21 23:07 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <j0at16$201$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <98q5oiFroiU3@mid.individual.net> <j0acoa$h7u$1@dont-email.me> <98rrmqFroiU8@mid.individual.net> <j0ar1n$p5b$1@dont-email.me> <4E28F28A.8020208@hotmail.com> |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/22/11 03:33 PM, JBarleycorn wrote: >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/22/11 11:29 AM, JBarleycorn wrote: >>>> Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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)? >> >> *I* don't have to for I consider anything where char is not 8 bits >> to be an exotic. > > How can something that exists in the hundreds of millions be > considered exotic? > >>>>> 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. >> >> On the other stuff, we're going around in circles so I'll just leave >> it at that. Please my replies to JK in this thread for more insight >> to the "bool is broken" thing. > > I assume you won't give a real world example why bool is "broken" > because you don't have one. That you wrote that and keep asking that shows you don't know what the discussion is all about. I refer you to read the other posts. > >> I've already noted that having some kind of >> specification of fixed-width integral types in the standard shows >> that the size of a type does matter. > > For specialised cases, where bool wouldn't be appropriate. > >> In addition, I'll add here that >> recognition that type size matters was the motivation for modifying >> enums so that the type could be specified. Before that, enums were >> also broken. In the same vein, bool is broken, because there is no >> way to rely on the size of it (though in practice maybe it doesn't >> vary so much across platforms... I don't know). > > Yet again, in most cases, the size doesn't matter. Just the opposite, to me (as I have noted in *another post*): in most cases, type size does matter. That you may choose not to take advantage of the capabilities that the language offers is up to you. I, OTOH, exploit it as required and as can be had.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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