No Such Thing

[cottrell at nbs-vms.ARPA]

/*
> > > I personally prefer to distinguish between Boolean
> > > expressions (such as comparisons) and arithmetic expressions, using
> > > strictly Boolean expressions as conditions.  Thus:
> > > 	while ( *s++ != '\0' )
> 
> >       While I certainly agree that code should be written
> > so that it is readible, I do not see how the relational operators
> > in the above examples really improve the readibility of the code.
> 
> Perhaps I can make this point clearer.  Nearly all Algol-like
> languages have a separate Boolean data type, and their conditional
> expressions are required to be of Boolean type.  In C, arithmetic
> expressions are made to do double duty and are interpreted in
> Boolean contexts as "true" if and only if the value is nonzero.

Quit while you're ahead, Doug.

> While this kludge obviously works, I think it adds one extra level
> of mental processing when one is reading conditionals in C.  This
> is because there is no visible percept corresponding to one's
> thoughts about comparison against zero; one has to explicitly apply
> a conceptual language evaluation rule to map the expression into a
> condition in order to extract the full meaning of the condition.

Flame On! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BOOLEAN!!! Flame Off.
In case you hadn't noticed, `<' & company are infix operator that
return a constant `zero' or `one'. Thus, *every* conditional using
the `boolean' operators ultimately reduces to either
	if (0) { ... }		or 	if (1) { ... }
THIS IS NOT A KLUDGE! It is the WAY IT SHOULD BE! What could be
more mnemonic (except to a nihilist :-) than TRUE if nonzero, and
FALSE if zero. One of C's design virtues is that it is minimal, yet
(relatively) complete. Don't drag outmoded concepts into the future!
 
> Many Boolean expressions are not best thought of as comparison of
> an arithmetic quantity against zero.  For example:
> 	while ( ! Done() )
> 		Perform_Action();

We agree, but for different reasons. You insist on dragging in
an outmoded concept, then complaining that it doesn't fit very well.
I just read what it says.

> I have found that introducing Booleans as an explicit data type
> into my C code has helped me produce better-organized code having
> clearer meaning (once you get used to the idea).  Although these
> days...

Context provided for below statement.

> I am pretty conservative

I think this pretty much sums it up.

> ... when it comes to defining one's own
> language extensions, this one seems like a winner:
> 
> 	typedef int	bool;
> 	#define	false	0
> 	#define	true	1
> 

Seems like a loser to me. Just takes up space. I actually have to READ it.

> And of course I can still read idiomatic C code produced by others,
> but I do notice the extra effort required.

Yeah, but then you go messing up your source with all those casts :-)

> > Readible code is code where the authors intent is clear, where
> > the data structures and the types of operations that can be
> > performed on the data structures make sense in the context of the
> > problem being solved.
> 
> This is an excellent point.  Perhaps I shouldn't be taking that
> for granted.

Actually, Doug, I'm not so much writing this to you as much as
all those other people out there who insist on fortrash as a model
for all their computing. Sorry about the cheap shot, but I wish you
were a little more daring in your philosophy. K & R were.

	"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing at all"
					- Helen Keller

	jim		cottrell at nbs
*/
------