Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!keesan
From: keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: typedefs, etc. - (nf)
Message-ID: <430@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Jan-84 10:01:55 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.430
Posted: Tue Jan  3 10:01:55 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jan-84 03:05:13 EST
References: <1200@ucbcad.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 37

-----------------------------------

>ucbesvax!turner    Dec 30 03:26:00 1983
>Re: returning crafty boolean expressions
>    typedef int BOOL;	 /* ?! */
>That's not what I do!  I have (in ~turner/include/macros.h):
>    typedef enum { FALSE, TRUE } bool;
>With this bool-type, the following causes a type-clash on return value warning:
>    bool yes( )
>    {
>	     return getchar( ) == 'y';
>    }
>I would have to (and am willing to) say, instead:
>    bool yes( )
>    {
>	     if (getchar( ) == 'y')
>		 return TRUE;
>	     else
>		 return FALSE;
>    }
>>>>>>>>>

    I question the utility of a 'bool' type which generates type-clashes
with boolean expressions.  However, if you insist on using it, do you object
to 
	    return( (bool)(getchar() == 'y') );
?  This avoids the type-clash warning, and is guaranteed to work.
Saying
	    if( getchar() == 'y' ) return TRUE; else return FALSE;
is only one step away from
	    if( (getchar() == 'y') == TRUE ) return TRUE; else return FALSE;
and equally silly.  The whole point of boolean types/values is that they reflect
the values which can be held by boolean expressions.
-- 
					Morris M. Keesan
					{decvax,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!keesan
					keesan @ BBN-UNIX.ARPA