Re: Alternative to "bool*" (was: Re: From C++ to Shining C (bool))

Article View: comp.std.c++

Article #1484

#1484

From: halasz
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:32

8 lines
879 bytes

In article <6495210.84230.22474@kcbbs.gen.nz>, martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Martin Kealey) writes
+ BTW: Has anyone considered that under and specification-based extended integer
+ range (such as proposed by Frank Farance), it is possible simply to say
+ 
+     typedef int fast exact:1 logical_t;

This indeed expozes the queerness of both propozals--but beware of "++":
this makes it flip the state, not make it "1".

Technical Details

Message-ID: <3vji4v$6sr@caip.rutgers.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!caip.rutgers.edu!not-for-mail

References: <3thkkk$437@fido.asd.sgi.com> <3tv3gv$bhc@yage.tembel.org> <6495210.84230.22474@kcbbs.gen.nz>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!caip.rutgers.edu!not-for-mail
From: halasz@caip.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Alternative to "bool*" (was: Re: From C++ to Shining C (bool))
Date: 31 Jul 1995 17:32:15 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vji4v$6sr@caip.rutgers.edu>
References: <3thkkk$437@fido.asd.sgi.com> <3tv3gv$bhc@yage.tembel.org> <6495210.84230.22474@kcbbs.gen.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: caip.rutgers.edu

Reply to Parent Message