Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Get Qt Extensions
  • Unsolved
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Special Interest Groups
  3. C++ Gurus
  4. Boolean in C
Forum Updated to NodeBB v4.3 + New Features

Boolean in C

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Unsolved C++ Gurus
34 Posts 11 Posters 5.3k Views 6 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • JonBJ JonB

    @sierdzio
    If one has to include a header file for them, makes me wonder if they are not "part of the language", just should be available if you include the header. Are they just #defines in that file??

    sierdzioS Offline
    sierdzioS Offline
    sierdzio
    Moderators
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    @JonB said in Boolean in C:

    @sierdzio
    If one has to include a header file for them, makes me wonder if they are not "part of the language", just should be available if you include the header. Are they just #defines in that file??

    yup :D

    #define and    &&
    #define and_eq &=
    #define bitand &
    #define bitor  |
    #define compl  ~
    #define not    !
    #define not_eq !=
    #define or     ||
    #define or_eq  |=
    #define xor    ^
    #define xor_eq ^=
    

    They are not actual C++ language reserved keywords.

    (Z(:^

    JonBJ 1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • sierdzioS sierdzio

      @JonB said in Boolean in C:

      @sierdzio
      If one has to include a header file for them, makes me wonder if they are not "part of the language", just should be available if you include the header. Are they just #defines in that file??

      yup :D

      #define and    &&
      #define and_eq &=
      #define bitand &
      #define bitor  |
      #define compl  ~
      #define not    !
      #define not_eq !=
      #define or     ||
      #define or_eq  |=
      #define xor    ^
      #define xor_eq ^=
      

      They are not actual C++ language reserved keywords.

      JonBJ Offline
      JonBJ Offline
      JonB
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      @sierdzio
      Hmmmm.... So does gcc have these in some header file, or does their C++ actually have them as reserved? It does have an iso646.h file, with the #defines, yet you said they worked for you in gcc without you explicitly including that? Does it include it automatically or from something else?

      J.HilkJ 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • JonBJ JonB

        @sierdzio
        Hmmmm.... So does gcc have these in some header file, or does their C++ actually have them as reserved? It does have an iso646.h file, with the #defines, yet you said they worked for you in gcc without you explicitly including that? Does it include it automatically or from something else?

        J.HilkJ Offline
        J.HilkJ Offline
        J.Hilk
        Moderators
        wrote on last edited by
        #23

        @JonB said in Boolean in C:

        worked for you in gcc without you explicitly including that? Does it include it automatically or from something else

        This header was originally in the C standard library as <iso646.h>.
        Compatibility header, in C defines alternative operator representations which are keywords in C++.
        This means that in a conforming implementation, including this header has no effect.
        

        gcc has mostly a conforming implementation, at least in this regard


        Be aware of the Qt Code of Conduct, when posting : https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct


        Q: What's that?
        A: It's blue light.
        Q: What does it do?
        A: It turns blue.

        JonBJ 1 Reply Last reply
        2
        • J.HilkJ J.Hilk

          @JonB said in Boolean in C:

          worked for you in gcc without you explicitly including that? Does it include it automatically or from something else

          This header was originally in the C standard library as <iso646.h>.
          Compatibility header, in C defines alternative operator representations which are keywords in C++.
          This means that in a conforming implementation, including this header has no effect.
          

          gcc has mostly a conforming implementation, at least in this regard

          JonBJ Offline
          JonBJ Offline
          JonB
          wrote on last edited by
          #24

          @J-Hilk said in Boolean in C:

          This header was originally in the C standard library as <iso646.h>.

          So what file is this in, which you say is included automatically?

          jsulmJ J.HilkJ 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • JonBJ JonB

            @J-Hilk said in Boolean in C:

            This header was originally in the C standard library as <iso646.h>.

            So what file is this in, which you say is included automatically?

            jsulmJ Offline
            jsulmJ Offline
            jsulm
            Lifetime Qt Champion
            wrote on last edited by
            #25

            @JonB said in Boolean in C:

            which you say is included automatically?

            My understanding is that it is NOT included automatically in conforming C++ implementations because those understand these words as keywords and don't need this header file (which is only there for compatibility reasons).

            https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct

            JonBJ 1 Reply Last reply
            2
            • JonBJ JonB

              @J-Hilk said in Boolean in C:

              This header was originally in the C standard library as <iso646.h>.

              So what file is this in, which you say is included automatically?

              J.HilkJ Offline
              J.HilkJ Offline
              J.Hilk
              Moderators
              wrote on last edited by
              #26

              @JonB I'm talking about the iso646.h @sierdzio mentioned

              https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/ciso646

              Probably the reason why MSVC doesn't have those as keywords but requires this header is, IIRC, that it doesn't have/use a dedicated c compiler for c headers and it would break legacy stuff if those were used as keywords


              Be aware of the Qt Code of Conduct, when posting : https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct


              Q: What's that?
              A: It's blue light.
              Q: What does it do?
              A: It turns blue.

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • jsulmJ jsulm

                @JonB said in Boolean in C:

                which you say is included automatically?

                My understanding is that it is NOT included automatically in conforming C++ implementations because those understand these words as keywords and don't need this header file (which is only there for compatibility reasons).

                JonBJ Offline
                JonBJ Offline
                JonB
                wrote on last edited by
                #27

                @jsulm
                Mine too. But I quote from @sierdzio above:

                Last time I tried was last year. Clang, GCC all are 100% fine with it, MSVC was throwing errors.

                I now see it's supposed to be defined in some iso646.h header, I never included it, perhaps that's the reason.

                My question is (should be) aimed at him: he says it worked automatically in GCC/Clang (but not MSVC) with no #include from him, that's what I'm trying to understand.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • fcarneyF Offline
                  fcarneyF Offline
                  fcarney
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #28

                  I know Boolean is someone's name.
                  But it kind of look like a diet fad to scare people skinny: boo-lean.

                  C++ is a perfectly valid school of magic.

                  jsulmJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • fcarneyF fcarney

                    I know Boolean is someone's name.
                    But it kind of look like a diet fad to scare people skinny: boo-lean.

                    jsulmJ Offline
                    jsulmJ Offline
                    jsulm
                    Lifetime Qt Champion
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #29

                    @fcarney You mean Anne Boleyn, one of the wifes of king Henry VI which was executed. She was mother of Elisabeth I :-)

                    https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct

                    jeremy_kJ 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • jsulmJ jsulm

                      @fcarney You mean Anne Boleyn, one of the wifes of king Henry VI which was executed. She was mother of Elisabeth I :-)

                      jeremy_kJ Offline
                      jeremy_kJ Offline
                      jeremy_k
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #30

                      @jsulm said in Boolean in C:

                      @fcarney You mean Anne Boleyn, one of the wifes of king Henry VI which was executed. She was mother of Elisabeth I :-)

                      Ha! I'm not sure what a Boleyn variable would be. Dangerous in some manner.

                      Presumably @fcarney is referring to George Boole.

                      Asking a question about code? http://eel.is/iso-c++/testcase/

                      Kent-DorfmanK 1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      • J.HilkJ J.Hilk

                        @sierdzio , @JonB

                        are you guys aware, that not is a valid keyword in c++ ?

                        https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/keyword/not

                        Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                        Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                        Kent-Dorfman
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #31

                        @J-Hilk said in Boolean in C:

                        are you guys aware, that not is a valid keyword in c++ ?

                        Heretic!
                        and the discussion is about C. ;^P

                        But to the point about superfluous comparisons: I guess is comes down to whether you understand the grammar. If you understand that all comparison operations evaluate to a boolean value (zero, or not zero) then it should become evident that explicit comparisons of booleans to a constant is redundant.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • jeremy_kJ jeremy_k

                          @jsulm said in Boolean in C:

                          @fcarney You mean Anne Boleyn, one of the wifes of king Henry VI which was executed. She was mother of Elisabeth I :-)

                          Ha! I'm not sure what a Boleyn variable would be. Dangerous in some manner.

                          Presumably @fcarney is referring to George Boole.

                          Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                          Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                          Kent-Dorfman
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #32

                          @jeremy_k said in Boolean in C:

                          Ha! I'm not sure what a Boleyn variable would be. Dangerous in some manner.

                          I guess technically I AM, being a decendent of Mary Boleyn...as for being dangerous... :^D

                          JonBJ 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • Kent-DorfmanK Kent-Dorfman

                            @jeremy_k said in Boolean in C:

                            Ha! I'm not sure what a Boleyn variable would be. Dangerous in some manner.

                            I guess technically I AM, being a decendent of Mary Boleyn...as for being dangerous... :^D

                            JonBJ Offline
                            JonBJ Offline
                            JonB
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #33

                            @Kent-Dorfman said in Boolean in C:

                            I guess technically I AM, being a decendent of Mary Boleyn

                            Are you also claiming to be a descendant of Henry VIII? :)

                            Kent-DorfmanK 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • JonBJ JonB

                              @Kent-Dorfman said in Boolean in C:

                              I guess technically I AM, being a decendent of Mary Boleyn

                              Are you also claiming to be a descendant of Henry VIII? :)

                              Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                              Kent-DorfmanK Offline
                              Kent-Dorfman
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #34

                              @JonB said in Boolean in C:

                              Are you also claiming to be a descendant of Henry VIII? :)

                              Claiming is such a strict definition. It is an interesting possibility that historians play with, and I cannot discount how much my cousins look like Henry in his later years (according to paintings)...and we do know that grammy Mary was quite the party girl.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              1

                              • Login

                              • Login or register to search.
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              0
                              • Categories
                              • Recent
                              • Tags
                              • Popular
                              • Users
                              • Groups
                              • Search
                              • Get Qt Extensions
                              • Unsolved