Different languages approach boolean operations in different ways.
1: the C way
false=0 true=anything else seperate logical and bitwise operators.
2: the BASIC way (also used by the access database)
false=0 true=-1 logical and bitwise operations therefore equivilent
(though it should be noted
[]
> > You're programing, the C way.
[]
>
> > You can't expect that -1 equals True, and any other value
> equals false, (I
>
> You can expect whatever it's documented "equals true" and
> sometimes you must
That's right. I can expect whatever is documented. In C there's no boolean
type. In Pascal (
El Viernes, 31 de Diciembre de 2004 18:40, Jose Manuel escribiste:
> > > > else
> > > > WriteLn('Other');
> > >
> > > This better should read:
> > > WriteLn('corrupt data space!!!'); Panic;
> >
> > Much more useful :->
>
> (AFAIK) you do.
¡Serás melón! ¿A qué se supone que estás respondiend
>
> > > else
> > > WriteLn('Other');
> >
> > This better should read:
> > WriteLn('corrupt data space!!!'); Panic;
>
> Much more useful :->
(AFAIK) you do.
You're programing, the C way.
You can't expect that -1 equals True, and any other value equals false, (I
really dunno, but I think I
El Viernes, 31 de Diciembre de 2004 17:18, Florian Klaempfl escribiste:
> > That's great! But why do you tell it *to me*?
>
> I only cross read the thread and wanted to clarify things :)
Oh, I see.
Happy new year! :-)
--
saludos,
Nico Aragón
http://espira.net/nico/
__
Nico Aragón wrote:
El Viernes, 31 de Diciembre de 2004 14:58, Florian Klaempfl escribiste:
type boolean = (false,true);
is how boolean is defined/declared
so assigning anything else than true or false to a boolean might cause
problems :)
That's great! But why do you tell it *to me*?
I only cross
El Viernes, 31 de Diciembre de 2004 14:58, Florian Klaempfl escribiste:
> type boolean = (false,true);
> is how boolean is defined/declared
>
> so assigning anything else than true or false to a boolean might cause
> problems :)
That's great! But why do you tell it *to me*?
I didn't start this t
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, DrDiettrich wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Naming a unit with 'u' standard does not seem useful to me, but this is
> > a matter of taste.
> ...
> > All other files are assumed to be units.
> > (projects/packages have distinct extensions anyway)
>
> No problem at t
Hello.
Does anyone know what happened to the fpUmask function under fpc Darwin
1.9.5 [2004/08/08] for powerpc? I'm guessing that It's supposed to be
in the baseunix unit, and I have verified this under fpc Linux 1.9.4
[2004/05/30] for i386.
Using the Darwin compiler produces: Identifier not fo
Nico Aragón wrote:
type boolean = (false,true);
is how boolean is defined/declared
so assigning anything else than true or false to a boolean might cause
problems :)
else
WriteLn('Other');
This better should read:
WriteLn('corrupt data space!!!'); Panic;
Much more useful :->
___
El Viernes, 31 de Diciembre de 2004 13:13, DrDiettrich escribiste:
> Nico Aragón wrote:
> > IIRC, any non-zero value is evaluated as "True" for a Boolean variable.
>
> You should not guess about any implementation.
I don't. Do I?
> > else
> > WriteLn('Other');
>
> This better should read:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Naming a unit with 'u' standard does not seem useful to me, but this is
> a matter of taste.
...
> All other files are assumed to be units.
> (projects/packages have distinct extensions anyway)
No problem at the directory level, but how to distinguish names of
units, ty
Marco van de Voort wrote:
> Better have a separate way. Otherwise you can't set e.g. a compressionlevel
> for that stream, _or_ you have to have lots of different constructors.
Compressors can require any kind and number of arguments, that must be
reflected somewhere, e.g. in the specific constru
peter green wrote:
>
> I think the old saying goes garbage in garbage out.
100%
> range checking should probablly catch this sort of stuff but that has a high
> performance penalty and is therefore usually disabled.
IIRC range checking occurs on assignments, not on using the values, just
to red
Nico Aragón wrote:
> IIRC, any non-zero value is evaluated as "True" for a Boolean variable.
You should not guess about any implementation. Forcing out-of-range
values into strictly typed variables is a user bug, at the full risk of
(and shame on) that user.
Who's to blame when somebody applies
> How about this one:
>
>
> program problem;
> begin
> Write('Test One: ');
> if ( boolean(255) ) then WriteLn(True) else WriteLn(False);
> Write('Test Two: ');
> WriteLn( boolean(255) );
> end.
>
>
> FPC 1.9.4 output:
> Test One: FALSE
> Test Two: TRUE
>
> Kylix 1.0 output:
> Test On
How about this one:
program problem;
begin
Write('Test One: ');
if ( boolean(255) ) then WriteLn(True) else WriteLn(False);
Write('Test Two: ');
WriteLn( boolean(255) );
end.
FPC 1.9.4 output:
Test One: FALSE
Test Two: TRUE
Kylix 1.0 output:
Test One: TRUE
Test Two: Segmentatio
17 matches
Mail list logo
