HN

Comments (26)

• Panzerschrek
  With such example: bool Complement( bool x ) { return ~x; } GCC gives a warning if compiling with -Wall: test.cpp:3:10: warning: ‘~’ on an expression of type bool [-Wbool-operation] return ~x; So, it's surprise that C++ does this, but ones who enable compiler warnings are not in trouble.
• Menu

  rep_lodsb
  They should have defined true as -1 (all bits set) instead, as in some other languages like Forth and BASIC.
• wpollock
  While I understand why C++ defines bool as an Integer, it might have been better if it wasn't. It's not a problem for me that in some modern languages, boolean cannot be mixed with numbers in an expression.
• nine_k
  C++ is a true spiritual successor to Perl, in a way. It can express anything and everything, its syntax is arcane, as is its logic. Most of the time, of course, what you see is what you get, until the moment when what you see is what you don't get.
• Menu

  s-zeng
  In any field of characteristic 2, every element is its own negative. So on the surface this makes sense, notwithstanding the unintuitive enum corner case behaviour
• pwdisswordfishq
  I wonder if [[=std::bitmask_type]] also enables compiler warnings that a switch statement is not exhaustive if it does not cover all possible flag combinations.
• anon
  undefined
• Menu

  glownagger
  I thought attributes were reserved for compiler-specific semantics like calling conventions. Here they're just being used as stropping for a language feature with syntactic significance!