Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4850 comp.lang.c:22339 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!udel!rochester!quiroz From: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false" Message-ID: <1989Sep28.163005.9544@cs.rochester.edu> Date: 28 Sep 89 16:30:05 GMT References: <12070@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <8862@etana.tut.fi> Reply-To: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) Followup-To: comp.lang.c++ Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY 14627 Lines: 24 In <8862@etana.tut.fi>, pl@etana.tut.fi (Lehtinen Pertti) suggested that the bogus "optimization" | 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. could make !!a be just good old a, instead of guaranteed 0 or 1. Either such compiler exists, in whose case it is broken and we should not lose much sleep over it, or it doesn't. My impression is that it doesn't, barring better information from the poster. That would be a really poor case of arguing from the incompetence of a non-existent compiler. Madness lies that way; opposing or supporting something just because some compiler could, perhaps, maybe, if we try hard enough, screw up the language is ridiculous. If you know of a compiler that makes that mistake, expose it to the community, that may get it fixed (or at least may make it reasonable to be extra cautious when having to use the critter). Else, please don't invent it just for the sake of argument. -- Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez Department of Computer Science University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627