Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4853 comp.lang.c:22343
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!amdcad!cayman!tim
From: tim@cayman.amd.com (Tim Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false"
Message-ID: <27541@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 28 Sep 89 18:18:50 GMT
References: <12070@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <8862@etana.tut.fi>
Sender: news@amdcad.AMD.COM
Reply-To: tim@amd.com (Tim Olson)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Austin, TX
Lines: 20
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <8862@etana.tut.fi> pl@etana.tut.fi (Lehtinen Pertti) writes:
| From article <12070@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, by wen-king@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (King Su):
| > 
| > #define bool(a) (!!(a))
| > 
| > Then just use bool(X) whenever you wanted to use (bool)X.
| > 
| 
| 	Then suddenly just behind the corner cames C-compiler from
| 	ACME-corporation and realizes '!!a' -> negation of negation is
| 	same as original -> we can optimize it away.
| 
| 	Nice, isn't it.  And too real too.

And wrong, too.  Do you know of a compiler that does this in the
general case?

	-- Tim Olson
	Advanced Micro Devices
	(tim@amd.com)