View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
May 16, 2008
Re: opEquals needs to return bool
Janice Caron wrote:
> On 16/05/2008, BCS <ao@pathlink.com> wrote:
>>>> Bools are bytes, while ints are 4 bytes, so sometimes ints are
>>>> managed faster.
>>>>
>>> So why not just make bool a 4-byte value?  Using an integer to
>>> represent a boolean operation is just silly.
>>  Or pad them to 4 bytes where you can (local variable).
> 
> Honestly, I think I would be happy with a four-byte bool, in almost
> all circumstances.
> 
> For those rare cases where space is an issue, there could be a second
> type, bool8, implicitly castable to and from bool, but you wouldn't
> use that by default; you'd only use it in structs where you needed to
> pack stuff tight.

Instead of having a separate type, why not just use a (u)byte in those 
cases? That's gotta be rarer than the cases where you'd want to use an 
int for a bool, so while it's the same problem, the incidence of the 
problem is reduced while not adding yet another data type that may be 
unclear for new users
May 16, 2008
Re: opEquals needs to return bool
On 16/05/2008, Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Instead of having a separate type, why not just use a (u)byte in those
> cases? That's gotta be rarer than the cases where you'd want to use an int
> for a bool, so while it's the same problem, the incidence of the problem is
> reduced

Fair enough.

OK, let's just keep it simple. Let bools be int-sized, and let
opEquals return bool.
May 16, 2008
Re: opEquals needs to return bool
Janice Caron schrieb:

> OK, let's just keep it simple. Let bools be int-sized, and let
> opEquals return bool.

Hehe, changing the size of an existing integral type. That is going to 
be fun :)

However, i really think opEquals should be bool. int as return type is 
ugly and simply feels wrong.
Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home