Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why _Bool was not defined as enum in C99? |
| Date | 2016-09-14 14:02 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <ln8tuu5h4x.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <kfnd1k7jton.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lntwdj5lv2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnmvjaiwbw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnlgyu5qin.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfneg4miar7.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>> 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.
I think you're conflating two different things. Making _Bool usable
only in a boolean context would certainly break a lot of code.
I personally would advocate "neutered" Booleans for any new language,
but I wouldn't dream of suggesting making such a change to C.
But again, enumerated types *are* integer types. The language
provides the ability to specify the values of enumeration constants
for a good reason, and that by itself demonstrates that they
aren't *just* uniquely named constants whose actual values we
don't care about. In my opinion you're overstating the "purity"
of enumerated types.
In fact, if C99 had specified _Bool as a predefined enumerated
type, with some added requirements on its representation, its
conversion rank, and how it behaves, I'm not sure you could tell
the difference between that and _Bool as it's actually defined.
There are no operations that distinguish between enumerated types
and integer types (please correct me if I'm mistaken). Of course
the fact that false and true would no longer be macros would be
visible -- but I'm not entirely happy about them being macros in
the first place (but again, I'm not suggesting a change).
(Our disagreement is a minor one about a design decision that
was made 17 years ago, and that neither of us suggests changing,
so there's that.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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