7 Dec
2010
7 Dec
'10
2:30 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Brent Hilpert once stated:
Agreed that double negation is not a fix to the error of said broken
compiler, but I wasn't sure that was Sean's point in suggesting double
negation.
I was replying to the following:
It was thus said that the Great Philip Pemberton once stated:
So you use the unary negation operator, which turns
your 0x80 (true)
into 0 (false). "TF"[0] is "T", because the original value was true.
Similarly, !0 = 1, and "TF"[1] is "F".
However: the compiler would still be correct to use the value 123
instead of 1, thus that code may not work... So it's compiler dependent,
but most compilers use 0/1 for boolean results, meaning you might not
spot the Big Nasty Bug until much, much later.
Which I don't think is correct compiler behavior, and (ha ha-half
seriously) suggested the double negation.
You nonetheless agreed with Phil's assertion that
it was
compiler-dependant behaviour.
-spc (don't think it's compiler-depenant behavior, but I avoid
logical negation in my own C code ... )