------- Comment #9 from deba at inf dot elte dot hu 2008-12-03 19:26 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > I'm not convinced that we shouldn't warn in these cases. Yes, there are cases > where people overload the operators in ways that make normal precedence > irrelevant. But, there are also cases where people define boolean-like > objects > that are not themselves "bool". > If the user-defined boolean-like object can be compared with other types, then the user had to write such a comparison operator, therefore the user declared that the boolean-like type is comparable with the other type. So this case could not be a problem.
However, in my point of view, the proposed patch is not surely the best solution. The C++ defined the bool, which could solve the (a < b < c) problem. But unfortunately, as a shortcoming of the backward compatibility with C, the bool type is convertible to numeric types, which is a quite wrong pitfall. I think, instead of the current patch, the implicit conversion of a bool to numeric value should be warned in C++. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36921
