DMD 0.149 release

[Derek Parnell]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:47:38 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede at nospam.org> wrote in message 
>> news:440E1336.3050608 at nospam.org...
>> 
>>>BTW, what does "Implicit casts of non-bool to bool disallowed" mean?
>> 
>> It means you can no longer write
>> 
>> bool x = 5; 
> 
> Shhhhhttt! Good-bye C/C++ folks!
> 
> It's not like anybody would want to write exactly
> 
>      bool x = 5;
> 
> but more like
> 
>      bool x = strcmp("foo", "bar");
>      if (!x) { /* do stuff */ }        // match
>      else { /* call the cops! */ }     // no match

Why would anyone in their right mind code something as stupid as that? This
just misleads people who have to read your code. Instead do either ...

      bool x = cast(bool)strcmp("foo", "bar");
or
      int x = strcmp("foo", "bar");
or
      auto x = strcmp("foo", "bar");

In other words, code what you mean and mean what you code.

> which, incidentally, is one of the more profound proposititions in any 
> C-derived language.

Profoundly dumb. <g>
 
> The Old School Boolean C Logic was a perfectly functioning Concept. This 
> fact _alone_ was the reason "Bool" took so long to be "formally" 
> introduced into either C or C++. No regular programmer ever needed Prude 
> Bool, only the Superior Theoreticians Thought it Wise to force this upon 
> the language. It was profoundly useful as-is, and didn't need any 
> pimping. 

Are you deliberately trolling?

I am a "regular programmer" and a correctly implemented boolean type is
exactly what I need. What on Earth is "profoundly useful" about assigning a
number to a boolean variable? It is far better (read: cost efficient at
compile time, run time, and maintenance time) to code your intentions
rather than taking advantage of a language's quirky 'features'. Such
behaviour is only (IMNSHO) acceptable in absolutely runtime performance
critical fragments, and then only if heavily and accurately documented.

> A language that purports to be "to-the-metal" just has to take 
> into consideration the fundamentals of [digital] life. And processor 
> physics. (Wanna abstract away that? Then go to Java or whatever.)

You seem to be confusing implementation with syntax/semantics. The compiler
can do the semantic analysis correctly and then implement the code in the
most efficient manner for the target platform. These are independent of
each other.

> The other night [in the D newsgroup, when it was getting hilarious] it 
> dawned to me, that quite [too] many of the vocatious NG-members never 
> had read their Boolean IT Fundamentals.

And yet, you don't seem to "get it" either.

> Good Grief: "there's just too many instances in history where the 
> illiterati have dictated the outcome of otherwise intellectual 
> confrontations". Damn!!
> 
> The ramifications of this (minor looking) modification are grave, I'm 
> afraid.
> 
> Now what happens to
> 
>      if (stcmp("foo", "bar")) {}
> 
> ???

This really shows that you are reading too much into the issue and not
reading the specs themselves. In fact, a 2-minute test would answer this
question for you anyway!

import std.stdio;
int Foo(int x)
{
   return x;
}

void main()
{

     bool x = cast(bool)Foo(0);
     if (!x) { writefln(" do stuff "); }
     else { writefln("call the cops!"); }

     if(Foo(2)) writefln("Foo(2)");
     if(Foo(0)) writefln("Foo(0)");

}

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
8/03/2006 12:14:18 PM