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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #93470

Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99?

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>>> thiago.adams@gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone knows if an enumeration was considered to implement _Bool?
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't make sense to implement _Bool as an enumeration,
>>>> because by there aren't any enumeration constants that go
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> Surely if _Bool were an enumerated type, false and true would be
>>> enumeration constants.
>>
>> The point is that isn't a good fit for the existing semantics
>> of _Bool.  Part of the reason that _Bool is an integer type is
>> that it is important that "false" be 0 and "not false" be 1
>> (ie, important in the sense that it is an essential aspect of
>> the semantics of _Bool).  Normally enumeration constants are
>> used when one wants to decouple the name of a constant and its
>> value.  A key element of _Bool, as it is defined in C, and in
>> contrast to some other languages where a boolean type is more
>> like an enumerated type, is that it must behave like an integer
>> with certain known values.  It doesn't make sense to pretend
>> the particular values don't matter, which having enumeration
>> constants usually suggests.
>
> I disagree.  C's enumerated types are integer types.  In fact each
> enumerated type is compatible with char, with an unsigned integer
> type, or with a signed integer type.  (Type compatibility isn't
> quite identity, but it's close.)
>
> Some enumerated types define a set of constants where we only care
> that they're distinct, but we can also specify the value of each
> enumerator.  For example, we could have:
>
>     typedef enum { false = 0, true = 1 } bool;
>
> but the "= 0" and "= 1" are superfluous, since 0 and 1 are the
> defined values anyway.
>
> And of course false and true are of type int -- which they are
> in <stdbool.h>.

In terms of C's formal semantics what you're saying is right.

In terms of how programmers generally conceptualize and use
enumerated types, I think it isn't.  My comments are not meant to
be about C's formal semantics.  They are meant to be about how
people think about enumerated types and how they use them.  It is
relatively rare, for example, to see an enumerated type take part
in ordinary arithmetic, eg, addition.  That sort of dichotomy
reflects a significant underlying conceptual difference between
enumerated types and ordinary (arithmetic) integer types.

> I'm not arguing that C *should* have made bool/_Bool an enumerated
> type, but it *could* have done so, and I don't think it would have
> caused any problems.  (A handful of special-case rules would have
> been needed.)

I have no doubt that _Bool could have been made an enumerated
type.  My point is that there are sensible reasons that it wasn't
(and should not have been) made an enumerated type, because doing
so would not be a good fit to C's conceptual model of how
"boolean" operators like '<', etc, work.  Note that this model is
deeply embedded in C, certainly going back past K&R 1.  (I'm a
bit fuzzy on the history pre-K&R, so I won't go back past that,
but surely the basic 0/1-ness of "boolean" operators is firmly
entrenched by the time of K&R 1.).

>>                              Some languages choose to neuter
>> their boolean types in the sense that they may be used only in
>> a boolean context (and not, eg, an arithmetic context).
>> Personally I think that's a poor decision, and am glad C chose
>> to adopt a more Iverson-like semantics for _Bool.  Considering
>> that choice, it follows that _Bool is better suited to a
>> regular (arithmetic) integer type than an enumerated type.
>
> Personally I prefer the "neutered" approach, but that's a bit
> off-topic.

IMO that question is relevant to the current discussion.  At some
level I think it is because C "boolean" expressions are available
for use (and also used) in arithmetic contexts that _Bool was
made one of the standard integer types and not an enumerated
type.  The choice was not arbitrary but made to be in step with a
significant facet of C's history and conceptual philosophy.
Having _Bool be an enumerated type, and/or be usable only in a
"boolean" context, would go against the philosophical grain of,
at that time, 20 or 30 years of history.

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

Thread

Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? thiago.adams@gmail.com - 2016-09-12 13:24 -0700
  Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-12 21:56 +0100
    Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-12 15:59 -0700
    Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 16:05 -0700
      Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-13 18:17 -0700
        Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-14 01:20 +0100
        Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 03:59 -0700
        Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-09-14 17:31 +0100
          Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:49 -0700
            Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 11:45 -0700
        Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2016-09-14 14:13 -0700
          Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 16:26 -0700
  Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-12 17:11 -0400
  Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 15:55 -0700
    Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-13 18:08 -0700
      Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 03:56 -0700
        Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 07:58 -0700
          Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-14 19:39 +0100
            Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 13:52 -0700
              Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-15 00:53 +0100
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 17:04 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 20:52 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 19:26 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 19:04 -0700
            Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 14:21 -0700
              Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 16:23 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 17:06 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 20:45 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 22:12 -0400
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 12:37 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:35 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:47 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 22:02 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 09:56 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 07:34 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:31 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 12:32 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:30 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-15 18:25 +0100
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:35 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:51 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 17:02 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 19:23 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:35 +0200
        Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 10:40 -0700
          Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:01 -0700
            Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 11:35 -0700
              Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 22:15 -0400
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 23:51 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 15:14 -0400
              Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-15 16:08 +1200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 12:46 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:37 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:53 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 21:45 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-16 06:32 +0100
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 09:59 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 11:00 +0100
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 04:46 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 12:58 +0100
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 12:06 +0000
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 05:13 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 10:47 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 10:46 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 10:02 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 11:42 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 10:19 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 08:06 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:51 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 11:56 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-22 22:38 -0700
          Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-14 11:42 -0700
            Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-14 14:02 -0700
              Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 10:51 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 11:18 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 13:46 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 13:10 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 16:01 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 13:40 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 07:21 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:37 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:55 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 14:43 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 15:36 -0700
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:45 +0200
                Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-17 17:14 -0700

csiph-web