Prev: _in s and _out s ?
Next: MSI Serial Number Validation
From: Doug Harrison [MVP] on 2 May 2010 16:35
On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:04:02 -0700, Geoff <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>What would you say about a practice like this?
>
>typedef enum {false, true} qboolean;
>
>qboolean funct(int arg)
>{
> if (something)
>/* do something */
>
> return true;
>
> else
>
>/* do something else*/
> return false;
>}

That's one way you could do in C. However, I think I would use:

typedef int boolean;
enum { false, true };

This is consistent with the relational operators. That is, x == y yields an
int equal to zero or one, and this is the closest thing to a genuine
boolean result in C. The only reason I used an enum instead of #define to
name the literals is so that the names would show up in the debugger. In
pre-standard C++, I would have used const int for the literals.

--
Doug Harrison
Visual C++ MVP
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: _in s and _out s ?
Next: MSI Serial Number Validation