Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: One more point regarding = and == (more flamage)
Message-ID: <15563@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 25 Mar 91 08:17:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: smoke.15563
References: <13603@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Mar22.161333.24290@dg-rtp.dg.com> <355@smds.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 20

In article <355@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>But that is a different argument, one that says one should not test on any
>thing except Booleans.  If it makes you happy, fine.  Go for it; transform
>all tests into Boolean expressions.  Know, though, that in your heart you
>are not a C programmer.  C has very simple and explicit rules about 
>conditional tests.  In Fortran and Pascal you test against true and false;
>in C you test against 0 and non-zero.  Sticking an irrelevant !=0 into the
>test is no more than another of the many ways that people have of trying
>to convert C into some other language.  Saying that it is clearer is no
>more than saying "I want to read C and see Pascal".

Gee, I guess I'm not a C programmer, according to your criterion.

I have found to the contrary that introduction of an explicit Boolean
type, used completely and consistently, makes C source more
intelligible and more likely to be correct.

I would agree with an assertion that a C programmer ought to fully
understand the traditional mixed numerical and Boolean usage, but
I don't recommend coding in such a style.