Re: RFC: booleans and the kernel

[Kai Henningsen]

[e-mail] (Timothy Covell)  wrote on 25.01.02 in <[e-mail].>:

> 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 that's not what C actually does.

> But I guess that you all are arguing that C wasn't built that way and
> that you don't want it.

We're talking about a specific language feature, and that feature isn't  
what you seem to be thinking it is. It does not change anything you can do  
with ints.

MfG Kai