Feed Icon RSS 1.0 XML Feed available

Treating Non-Boolean Types as Logic Values

Date: 26-Oct-2009/22:29

Tags:

Characters: (none)

Historically, I have always disliked the idea of using boolean test operations on types that can take a number of values. This deep-seated aesthetic grudge comes from cases like this:
int x = 0;
if (not x)
   cout << "X is zero" << endl;
I'm simply bothered by this. Perhaps it's a cognitive thing where I just don't feel there's any "truth" to the idea that every non-zero integer is somehow "true" but zero is somehow "false". It could just as easily be that negative numbers are false and non-negative numbers are true. Or if you ask a mathematical purist, they might suggest that at a more foundational level it is primes that are true and non-primes are false!
My comfort zone is when I'm only testing for "truth" and "falsehood" those things that can only have the values true and false. If I could, I would enforce this. So in the example above I would always write something more like:
int x = 0;
if (x == 0)
   cout << "X is zero" << endl;
That particular example is not very controversial, and I think most programmers would agree with me that's a better way to test against a literal zero. It's just better code for capturing the intention.
Yet I have historically considered that a logical extension of "zero is not false" is the premise that "null pointers are not false". And that belief is contrary to practice:
shared_ptr< foo > fooPointer;
if (not fooPointer)
   cout << "fooPointer is null" << endl;
In fact, look what a mouthful you get if you insist on comparing against null literally:
shared_ptr< foo > fooPointer;
if (fooPointer.get() == nullptr)
   cout << "fooPointer is null" << endl;
In the past I have tried to work around this by creating inline template wrappers like "isNull()" so that I could stick to my guns and avoid flattening pointers into booleans. It doesn't cost any more in the runtime, so I figured what's the harm?
template< class T > inline bool isNull(shared_ptr< T > ptr) {
  return !ptr;
}
Yet I've decided this is a lost cause and too much of a speed bump in sharing my code with other C++ programmers. They've accepted the notion that null pointers are false and non-null pointers are true, and you use boolean logic to test this—not some other operator. It's not worth it to pick this particular fight.
I'm not happy about it. But I now accept this for pointers only. And I'm going to use "not" instead of "!"... it's part of the language and a lot more readable.
Currently I am experimenting with using Disqus for comments, however it is configured that you don't have to log in or tie it to an account. Simply check the "I'd rather post as a guest" button that appears after you begin typing in a name.
comments powered by Disqus
Copyright (c) 2007-2014 hostilefork.com

Project names and graphic designs are All Rights Reserved, unless otherwise noted. Software codebases are governed by licenses included in their distributions. Posts on blog.hostilefork.com are licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, and may be excerpted or adapted under the terms of that license for noncommercial purposes.