home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU!not-for-mail
- From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. O'Keefe)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: 27 Feb 1996 14:56:11 +1100
- Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
- Message-ID: <4gtvcr$bo0@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
- References: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4etcmm$lpd@nova.dimensional.com> <312515DF.7D3B@cmlj.demon.co.uk> <4gad29$ddp@druid.borland.com> <4ggshe$7bk@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4gmp2o$ian@ux1.lmu.edu> <312FDB27.4B83@inav.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #0 (NOV)
-
- JR Crosmer <rainbow@inav.net> asks about c++
- >What is the status of the plain/ordinary/but very noticably forgotten boolean?
-
- Not forgotten. The 28 April 1995 draft lists
- bool false true
- as keywords. There are some oddities, notably that
- boolvar++;
- is defined to have the same effect as
- boolvar = true;
- which will not impress readers of comp.lang.ada.
-
- If you haven't already got them, then
- #define bool int
- #define false 0
- #define true 1
- will be a workable substitute (LC-lint already assumes this).
-
- A new header <bool.h> making these keywords available in C has been proposed
- for the revised C standard.
-
- The fundamental problem is that the mistakes a language _doesn't_ allow are
- almost as important as the good things it _does_ allow, and C and C++ have
- a lot of old code to be compatible with. This doesn't mean that strict
- checking is not possible, only that compilers are unlikely to do it by
- default. If only there were an LC-lint++ ...
-
- --
- Election time; but how to get Labor _out_ without letting Liberal _in_?
- Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.
-