Time to standardize "true" and "false"
Reinhard Foessmeier
foessmei at lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
Thu Sep 28 18:51:10 AEST 1989
In article <12067 at cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wen-king at cit-vax.UUCP (Wen-King Su) writes:
>...
>It doesn't have to be 32 bits. Besides, using 32 bits is perfectly OK
>if it makes the program faster and if speed is what you are after. If
>space is more important, you can do with 1 bit if you use bit field.
>We can do just fine with what we got, so the question is why is boolean
>needed and why is it, as you say, logical (perhaps you forgot a smiley).
>--
^Ci tiu diskuto iris tute alian This discussion has taken a road com-
vojon ol mi komence imagis. ^Cu pletely different from what I first
ne unu el la precipaj avanta^goj imagined. Wouldn't one of the main
de C-tipo `boolean' estus, ke ^gi advantages of a `boolean' type in C
ebligus pli striktan kontrolon de be the possibility for stricter type
tipoj (pli ol la ^sparo de kelkaj checking (rather than saving a few
bitoj)? Kompreneble, tiuj belaj bits)? Of course, such beloved con-
konstrua^joj "x<y<z<u" tiam ne structs as "x<y<z<u" would no longer
estus eblaj, se ne permesi ankaw be possible, unless comparison of
komparon de bule-oj. `boolean's would be permitted.
>/*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
>| Wen-King Su wen-king at vlsi.caltech.edu Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers |
>\*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
__________
Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen | UNOX is a trademark of
foessmeier at infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | "Union Deutsche
[ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ] | Lebensmittelwerke GmbH"
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list