Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!jak
From: jak@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (Jay A. Konigsberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE
Message-ID: <3835@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US>
Date: 29 Aug 90 22:58:09 GMT
References: <11215@alice.UUCP> <514@demott.COM> <2316@cirrusl.UUCP>
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.
Lines: 37

In article <2316@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In <514@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
>>
>>TRUE and FALSE are used for assignment purposes only.  It makes
>>the intent of the code more obvious.
>
>When I find somebody who really, really, really wants to define TRUE
>and FALSE, even somebody who uses them for assignment only, I recommend
>the following defines instead:
>
>     #define ZERO   0
>     #define ONE    1
>
>These are so much more clear than TRUE and FALSE, and if you use
>them in a test, you know exactly what you're testing!
>--

Pish-posh! TRUE and FALSE are much clearer. Kevin is correct when
he says TRUE and FALSE are used for assignment purposes only. The
resulting values are then easly checked in standard C syntax making
the code more self-documentating.

Personally though, I like the following:

#define TRUE -1

Why? Because of the following 8 bit pattern:

 1: 01111111
-1: 11111111

I mean, after all, if I'm going to set one I might as well set all :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay @ SAC-UNIX, Sacramento, Ca.   UUCP=...pacbell!sactoh0!jak
If something is worth doing, its worth doing correctly.