Re: [STYLE] use true/false in C++, not TRUE/FALSE

[Davi Arnaut]

On 8/31/10 2:51 PM, Vladislav Vaintroub wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roy Lyseng [mailto:roy.lyseng@stripped]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:43 PM
>> To: MARK CALLAGHAN
>> Cc: Davi Arnaut; Jay Pipes; Guilhem Bichot; internals
>> Subject: Re: [STYLE] use true/false in C++, not TRUE/FALSE
>
>
>> The good thing with bool return is that you cannot overload it with additional
>> information...
>
> Why not ? return (bool)42 would return 42 in every C99 implementation of bool, as
> bool is mapped to some integer type  per C99
> standard.
>

This is precisely why we should move away from my_bool on C. The C++ 
bool has special conversion rules: any pointer, enumeration, integral, 
etc can be converted to a bool, with a zero value, or null pointer being 
converted to false, everything else to true.

C has a different rule, whereas there can be truncation. For example, a 
larger int might be truncated when converting to my_bool, resulting in a 
false.

Just say *no* to Boolean in C. I actually worry when I see a return type 
of my_bool and a return value other than TRUE/FALSE. Better stick with a 
simple int in C code.