On 29-Mar-2012 03:20, David Brown wrote:
On 29/03/2012 00:52, mathog wrote:
A better solution for the aesthetics would have been (it is a bit
late
now) to implement the missing unary negation operator:
!!b; //T->F, F->T
You can't do that, because "!!" is already a useful operator on
integ
On 29/03/2012 00:52, mathog wrote:
On 28-Mar-2012 15:20, Michael Witten wrote:
However, it seems to me that toggling the value with the idiom:
--b;
is aesthetically preferable to the more elaborate:
b = !b;
Aesthetically, not logically. Neither of these makes the least bit of
sense:
one l
On 28-Mar-2012 15:20, Michael Witten wrote:
However, it seems to me that toggling the value with the idiom:
--b;
is aesthetically preferable to the more elaborate:
b = !b;
Aesthetically, not logically. Neither of these makes the least bit of
sense:
one less than False
one less
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 20:30, mathog wrote:
> Since b-- is equivalent to [assigning] !b,
> and b++ is equivalent to [assigning] 1, if
> that action is intended, there is no reason
> to use either the increment or decrement
> operators on a bool.
However, it seems to me that toggling the value w
On 28-Mar-2012 12:18, Michael Witten wrote:
Wow, that was thorough!
The behavior of b++ vs. b-- was interesting, but is yet one more reason
why the warning is needed. Since
b-- is equivalent to !b, and b++ is equivalent to 1, if that action is
intended, there is no reason to
use either the i
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:20:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (For example, b++ could easily wrap, and unexpectedly fast
> depending on the size of bool on a platform.)
Actually, it would appear that a bool (or a _Bool) can't wrap
on increment, but it CAN wrap on decrement (and strangely,
when the op
