Re: RFC: booleans and the kernel

[Timothy Covell]

On Thursday 24 January 2002 16:38, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 17:30, Timothy Covell wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 January 2002 16:19, Robert Love wrote:
> > > how is "if (x)" any less legit if x is an integer ?
> >
> > What about
> >
> > {
> >     char x;
> >
> >     if ( x )
> >     {
> >         printf ("\n We got here\n");
> >     }
> >     else
> >     {
> >         // We never get here
> >         printf ("\n We never got here\n");
> >     }
> > }
> >
> >
> > That's not what I want.   It just seems too open to bugs
> > and messy IHMO.
>
> When would you ever use the above code?  Your reasoning is "you may
> accidentally check a char for a boolean value."  In other words, not
> realize it was a char.  What is to say its a boolean?  Or not?  This
> isn't an argument.  How does having a boolean type solve this?  Just use
> an int.
>
> 	Robert Love

It would fix this because then the compiler would refuse to compile
"if (x)"  when x is not a bool.    That's what I would call type safety.
But I guess that you all are arguing that C wasn't built that way and
that you don't want it.    

-- 
[e-mail].