Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool |
| Date | 2012-04-26 07:57 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jnbd7q$17a$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <jki5iu$jea$1@dont-email.me> <jkinde$or2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jksrbo$p2a$1@dont-email.me> |
On 3/27/2012 12:53 PM, mathog wrote:
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>> I think you have an important point here. Bool is a logical value, not
>> an arithmetic or floating point value. There is no sense in taking the
>> square root of a bool, nor there is any sense in dividing a bool by any
>> integer: the result is always zero unless the other number is 1.
>
> My point exactly, even if a bool in some implementation is stored more
> or less the same way as an integer type, none of the integer operations
> should be applicable to it.
bool expensive(), complicated(), long_winded();
switch (4*expensive() + 2*complicated() + long_winded()) {
case 0: ...
case 1: ...
case 2: ...
case 3: ...
case 4: ...
case 5: ...
case 6: ...
case 7: ...
}
I'll grant that this sort of situation doesn't arise all that often,
and I'll grant that there are other ways to write the logic (there's
usually more than one way to do something in C), but I think you're
going overboard in trying to legislate the pattern out of existence.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
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