• Peter (4/4) May 02 2004 I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see tha...
• Matthew (14/18) May 02 2004 Sure would, but we can't agree on what boolean would be!
• J Anderson (7/14) May 02 2004 Won't bit be an integral type be a size that is optimal for the
• School (3/29) May 03 2004 It would be even better if you write a book called "Learning D" or "The
• Matthew (7/36) May 03 2004 my
• Brad Anderson (3/56) May 04 2004 http://www.thedprogramminglanguage.com/
• Stephan Wienczny (4/8) May 04 2004 If you look at the whois entry, you will see that the owner is Synesis
• Brad Anderson (2/12) May 04 2004
• Walter (8/12) May 02 2004 the
• Hauke Duden (8/31) May 03 2004 Well, then maybe a boolean shouldn't be a bit (hint,hint), but its own
• Walter (20/29) May 03 2004 instructions

Peter <Peter_member pathlink.com> writes:

I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that the
"is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given that
this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be better
to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be clearner.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

Sure would, but we can't agree on what boolean would be!

I think it should be an integral type, whose size is the same as that of the
architecture (for performance; the various supporting reasons for this are in my
<self-serving promotion>forthcoming book "Imperfect C++"</self-serving
promotion>), and which should *not* be implicitly convertible to/from any other
integral type.

But Walter, and a handful of other people, seem content to have it be aliased to
bit.

In the libraries I write, I typedef (remember D's typedefs are strong ones)
boolean from int, and use the casts as appropriate to return them. Walter
doesn't
like this, but I'm immutable on this point.

"Peter" <Peter_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c74i4i$l54$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that the
 "is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given that
 this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be

better
 to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be clearner.

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Matthew wrote:

Sure would, but we can't agree on what boolean would be!

I think it should be an integral type, whose size is the same as that of the
architecture (for performance)
  

But Walter, and a handful of other people, seem content to have it be aliased to
bit.
  

Won't bit be an integral type be a size that is optimal for the 
architecture.  I mean for the systems we use now byte is the most 
optimal choice for Boolean (due to caching and other factors).  If your 
using a single bit then it will be the size of a byte.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

School <itsnotvalid-news yahoo.com.hk> writes:

Matthew ´£¨ì:
 Sure would, but we can't agree on what boolean would be!
 
 I think it should be an integral type, whose size is the same as that of the
 architecture (for performance; the various supporting reasons for this are in
my
 <self-serving promotion>forthcoming book "Imperfect C++"</self-serving
 promotion>), and which should *not* be implicitly convertible to/from any other
 integral type.
 
 But Walter, and a handful of other people, seem content to have it be aliased
to
 bit.
 
 In the libraries I write, I typedef (remember D's typedefs are strong ones)
 boolean from int, and use the casts as appropriate to return them. Walter
doesn't
 like this, but I'm immutable on this point.
 
 "Peter" <Peter_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:c74i4i$l54$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that the
"is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given that
this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be

 
 better
 
to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be clearner.


It would be even better if you write a book called "Learning D" or "The
D Programming Language" or "Thinking in D" or "Prefect D".

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"School" <itsnotvalid-news yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:c75hcv$23rj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew ´£¨ì:
 Sure would, but we can't agree on what boolean would be!

 I think it should be an integral type, whose size is the same as that of the
 architecture (for performance; the various supporting reasons for this are in


my
 <self-serving promotion>forthcoming book "Imperfect C++"</self-serving
 promotion>), and which should *not* be implicitly convertible to/from any


other
 integral type.

 But Walter, and a handful of other people, seem content to have it be aliased


to
 bit.

 In the libraries I write, I typedef (remember D's typedefs are strong ones)
 boolean from int, and use the casts as appropriate to return them. Walter


doesn't
 like this, but I'm immutable on this point.

 "Peter" <Peter_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:c74i4i$l54$1 digitaldaemon.com...

I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that the
"is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given that
this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be

 better

to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be clearner.


 It would be even better if you write a book called "Learning D" or "The
 D Programming Language" or "Thinking in D" or "Prefect D".

Well, you may be onto something there. ;)

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> writes:

http://www.thedprogramminglanguage.com/

Wonder who owns that domain name...

Matthew wrote:
 "School" <itsnotvalid-news yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
 news:c75hcv$23rj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Matthew ´£¨ì:

Sure would, but we can't agree on what boolean would be!

I think it should be an integral type, whose size is the same as that of the
architecture (for performance; the various supporting reasons for this are in


 
 my
 
<self-serving promotion>forthcoming book "Imperfect C++"</self-serving
promotion>), and which should *not* be implicitly convertible to/from any


 
 other
 
integral type.

But Walter, and a handful of other people, seem content to have it be aliased


 
 to
 
bit.

In the libraries I write, I typedef (remember D's typedefs are strong ones)
boolean from int, and use the casts as appropriate to return them. Walter


 
 doesn't
 
like this, but I'm immutable on this point.

"Peter" <Peter_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c74i4i$l54$1 digitaldaemon.com...


I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that the
"is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given that
this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be

better


to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be clearner.


It would be even better if you write a book called "Learning D" or "The
D Programming Language" or "Thinking in D" or "Prefect D".

 
 
 Well, you may be onto something there. ;)
 
 

Stephan Wienczny <wienczny web.de> writes:

If you look at the whois entry, you will see that the owner is Synesis 
Software and the administrative contact is
Dr Matthew D. Wilson

Brad Anderson wrote:
 http://www.thedprogramminglanguage.com/
 
 Wonder who owns that domain name...
 

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.dot.org> writes:

I'm shocked beyond all reason.  ;)

Stephan Wienczny wrote:
 If you look at the whois entry, you will see that the owner is Synesis 
 Software and the administrative contact is
 Dr Matthew D. Wilson
 
 Brad Anderson wrote:
 
 http://www.thedprogramminglanguage.com/

 Wonder who owns that domain name...

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Peter" <Peter_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c74i4i$l54$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that

the
 "is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given

that
 this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be

better
 to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be

clearner.

Generally, a computation of 0 or !0 involves one or two less instructions
than converting it to 0 or 1.

Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> writes:

Walter wrote:
 "Peter" <Peter_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:c74i4i$l54$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I was looking at some of the modules such as ctype and math, and see that

 
 the
 
"is" functions (i.e. isalpha, isnan) return a value of type int.  Given

 
 that
 
this is a modern language having boolean types available, would it not be

 
 better
 
to return a value of type boolean?  I'm thinking that code would be

 
 clearner.
 
 Generally, a computation of 0 or !0 involves one or two less instructions
 than converting it to 0 or 1.
 
 

Well, then maybe a boolean shouldn't be a bit (hint,hint), but its own 
type where true simply means !=0.

IMHO, your using int instead of bool for a situation where you really 
MEAN a boolean is a tell-tale sign that something is wrong with the 
current bool implementation.

Not that it hasn't been mentioned before ;).

Hauke

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Hauke Duden" <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> wrote in message
news:c752e6$1e7a$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 Generally, a computation of 0 or !0 involves one or two less


instructions
 than converting it to 0 or 1.

 Well, then maybe a boolean shouldn't be a bit (hint,hint), but its own
 type where true simply means !=0.

I'm just one of those people, probably very few in number, who think that C
got it right by using 'int' for it and testing for 0 or !0. It's very
efficient, and I am loathe to give that up for anything less than a
thoroughly compelling reason. It's served me well for 20+ years of C coding.

There are 3 scenarios for a boolean:

1) need it to be fast
2) need a single value to be small
3) need a packed array of boolean values

'int' serves (1) well. D's 'bit[]' serves (3), and 'bit' does double duty by
also being a byte wide value when used outside of an array, serving (2).

 IMHO, your using int instead of bool for a situation where you really
 MEAN a boolean is a tell-tale sign that something is wrong with the
 current bool implementation.

While I see your point, I don't view it that way. I view it as getting
comfortable using an idiom that maps well onto efficient execution on the
hardware. Perhaps one reason I am so comfortable with it is all the
assembler programming I've done.

 Not that it hasn't been mentioned before ;).

Indeed. I recall the usenet flame wars on this back in the 1980's. The
various camps have all long since dug in and well fortified their positions,
so I don't think anyone is going to change their mind <g>.