Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: c99 and the lack of warnings when int operations are applied to a bool |
| Date | 2012-04-27 06:31 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jndsiu$60v$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <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> |
On 04/26/2012 10:32 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 4/26/2012 9:58 PM, James Kuyper wrote: ... >> In a hypothetical C-like language where bools were truly a separate >> type, a cast to int would not be allowed. Instead, use >> (isleap_year ? 1 : 0). > > "I'll grant ..." (Is there an echo in here?) > > 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. ... > If you're looking for a language with seat belts, training > wheels, airbags, and padded walls, C shouldn't be your first > choice, and restrictions on arithmetic wouldn't change matters. A C-like language with few more barriers between conceptually distinct things like numbers, characters, and bools than C has, would make it slightly easier to avoid writing nonsense. Those barriers wouldn't cause the loss of any truly valuable characteristic of C. -- James Kuyper
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