Re: [bool wrapping] Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

[David Brown <david@westcontrol.com>]

On 29/03/2012 00:52, mathog wrote:
> On 28-Mar-2012 15:20, Michael Witten wrote:
>
>> However, it seems to me that toggling the value with the idiom:
>>
>> --b;
>>
>> is aesthetically preferable to the more elaborate:
>>
>> b = !b;
>
> Aesthetically, not logically. Neither of these makes the least bit of
> sense:
>
> one less than False
> one less than True
>
> A better solution for the aesthetics would have been (it is a bit late
> now) to implement the missing unary negation operator:
>
> !!b; //T->F, F->T
>

You can't do that, because "!!" is already a useful operator on integers 
- it turns anything non-zero into 1 while leaving 0 alone, and is 
effectively an "int to bool" conversion operator.

> That operator would save even more program characters for the other int
> types, where it would be equivalent to:
>
> (i==0 ? 1 : 0);
>
>
> Regards,
>
> David Mathog
> mathog@caltech.edu
> Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech
>