#define TRUE (1 == 1) <= ow my eyes

#define boolean int <= what ?

now in my college they took a different approach :

(found in a C source file we had to work on on C classes)

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0,
         VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1,  True=1,  true=1} Booleen;

 

Not only  they managed to handle the personal preferences of everybody.  They also happened to provide both French and English wordings.

I find this a bit odd since they only defined Booleen and no Boolean. (not even speaking about BOOLEAN, booleen ...)

 

yoz-y:

I find this a bit odd since they only defined Booleen and no Boolean. (not even speaking about BOOLEAN, booleen ...)

I'm not 100% sure here, but are you implying that some people pronounce the word boolean as "bool een" as opposed to "bool ee en"?

Extending Booleen:

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0, VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1, True=1, true=1,
verdadeiro=1, Verdadeiro=1, VERDADEIRO=1, falso=0, Falso=0, FALSO=0} Booleen

Isn't BOOL just defined as int? But for the rest, damn, wtf were they thinking :|

XIU:

Isn't BOOL just defined as int?

Kinda depents on your world. I think in C it is. In Java it's a primitive right? with the boolean object version. In VB it's a own type, lua has a boolean type, so has php. Most insane version I've seen was in some C++ code, in which BOOL was an class, with it's own factory.

C# has FILE_NOT_FOUND ;-) as extra option in the boolean.

H|B:

Extending Booleen:

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0, VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1, True=1, true=1,
verdadeiro=1, Verdadeiro=1, VERDADEIRO=1, falso=0, Falso=0, FALSO=0} Booleen

oh, and while you're on it, you can also make it:

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0, VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1, True=1, true=1,
verdadeiro=1, Verdadeiro=1, VERDADEIRO=1, falso=0, Falso=0, FALSO=0, WAHR=1, Wahr=1, wahr=1, FALSCH=0, Falsch=0, falsch=0} Booleen

# The Brillant Paula Bean
# Author::    derula
# Copyright:: Copyright (c) 2005-2008 Paula Bean
# License::   Originally distributed under a
#             proprietary license by Paula Bean.
#             Ruby port by derula published
#             under the same terms as Ruby's.

# This module provides a method to return the
# brillance of Paula Bean. This can be achieved
# by calling the module method get_paula.
module Paula_Bean

  # This constant stores the essence of Paula
  # Bean's brillance. This is a private
  # constant, so you MAY NOT use
  # Paula_Bean::PAULA to access it! Please use
  # the get_paula method instead.
  PAULA = "Brillant"

  # Returns Paula Bean's brillance.
  def self.get_paula
    return PAULA
  end
end

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0,

         VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1,  True=1,  true=1, dossier_non_trouvé=2, file_not_found=2} Booleen;

 Fixed...
 

# define FALSE = (SwampSearch('Foo') == SwampSearch('Foo'))

 

yoz-y:

#define TRUE (1 == 1) <= ow my eyes

#define boolean int <= what ?

Actually, this isn't that bad (in C) - the best you can do for a boolean is some sort of integer type, and (1==1) is the best way to define true if you need to do so, because the value of (1==1) is only guaranteed to be nonzero (I think). So if you want "return TRUE" to be consistent with true-false generated by the comparison ops, this is a good way to do it.

 

now in my college they took a different approach :

(found in a C source file we had to work on on C classes)

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0,
         VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1,  True=1,  true=1} Booleen;

 

Not only  they managed to handle the personal preferences of everybody.  They also happened to provide both French and English wordings.

I find this a bit odd since they only defined Booleen and no Boolean. (not even speaking about BOOLEAN, booleen ...)

 

Now thats just WTF. 

Exteris:

# define FALSE = (SwampSearch('Foo') == SwampSearch('Foo'))

Sweet I've always wanted to be able to do:

Booleen done FALSE; //Reads funny

while (!done) {
//Eat pie and waffles
}

But alas, even with your generously provided code my program hangs during the "Booleen done FALSE". Please email me the codes, kind sir.

yoz-y:

#define TRUE (1 == 1) <= ow my eyes

That's a very old trick, dating back to when systems tended to have absurd rules like "0 is false, -1 is true, all other values are OUT OF CHEESE ERROR". More than a few old (as in greybeard) programmers have the habit of writing true and false as 1==1 and 1==0. It's easier than remembering what the numbers mean for whatever language this particular machine used. 

And thanks to Unicode, we can extend this to Mandarin and Sanskrit too! What an exciting world we live in!

Oooh, ooh, the other day I wanted to post this but forgot.  From some legacy C code, there were a number of functions declared as follows:

PRIVATE int fooBar()

"Wait a minute... These are global scope.  How can they be private?"

About 30 minutes of code searching later:

#define PRIVATE static

vt_mruhlin:

Oooh, ooh, the other day I wanted to post this but forgot.  From some legacy C code, there were a number of functions declared as follows:

PRIVATE int fooBar()

"Wait a minute... These are global scope.  How can they be private?"

About 30 minutes of code searching later:

#define PRIVATE static

That's just malicious. 

dhromed:

vt_mruhlin:

Oooh, ooh, the other day I wanted to post this but forgot.  From some legacy C code, there were a number of functions declared as follows:

PRIVATE int fooBar()

"Wait a minute... These are global scope.  How can they be private?"

About 30 minutes of code searching later:

#define PRIVATE static

That's just malicious. 

//From winuser.h
WINUSERAPI
int
WINAPI
ToUnicodeEx(
    UINT wVirtKey,
    UINT wScanCode,
    PBYTE lpKeyState,
    LPWSTR pwszBuff,
    int cchBuff,
    UINT wFlags,
    HKL dwhkl);

Not exactly the same as unsing a keyword, but really what's the point of having them when the user already knows they are reading a windows header file?

Lingerance:

//From winuser.h
... ToUnicodeEx

Not exactly the same as unsing a keyword, but really what's the point of having them when the user already knows they are reading a windows header file?

Visual Studio's Intellisense will display the comment immediately preceeding a function declaration when that function's intellisense popup appears.

So, in this case, when you type the open paren in "ToUnicodeEx(", you get a popup that gives you the function signature as well as telling you from which header it came. Not horribly useful, considering that there's a quick context option to go to the definition, and a better solution would be to always display the filename where the function was defined, but that's the rationale, anyway.

In Maya, the MEL scripting language and command line system interpret as follows:

False = false, 0, off

True = true, 1, on

And depending on who maintained that part of the documentation, they're all used interchangeably.  It actually makes sense in a lot of situations though since certain options are really being turned "off" while others are being falsified.  When the animators who have no coding experience see "off" they know what it means.

Lingerance:

Booleen done FALSE; //Reads funny

while (!done) {
//Eat pie and waffles
}

I always liked the "fun with unix command lines" stuff. Things like:

 % got a light?
No match.

% man woman
No manual entry for woman 

Daid:

Most insane version I've seen was in some C++ code, in which BOOL was an class, with it's own factory.

Why don't you look up how it's done in Smalltalk? I'll wait here, with popcorn.

operagost:

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0,

         VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1,  True=1,  true=1, dossier_non_trouvé=2, file_not_found=2} Booleen;

 Fixed...

Actually that should be fichier_non_trouvé.

Talchas:

yoz-y:

#define TRUE (1 == 1) <= ow my eyes

#define boolean int <= what ?

Actually, this isn't that bad (in C) - the best you can do for a boolean is some sort of integer type, and (1==1) is the best way to define true if you need to do so, because the value of (1==1) is only guaranteed to be nonzero (I think). So if you want "return TRUE" to be consistent with true-false generated by the comparison ops, this is a good way to do it.

Nah, such operators yield either 0 or 1 (I had to check the standards myself). (C90 §6.3.8 or C99 §6.5.9)

asuffield's got a point, though -- it's practical.
 

 

typedef enum{FAUX=0, Faux=0, faux=0, FALSE=0, False=0, false=0,
         VRAI=1, Vrai=1, vrai=1, TRUE=1,  True=1,  true=1} Booleen;

 

Not only  they managed to handle the personal preferences of everybody.  They also happened to provide both French and English wordings.

I find this a bit odd since they only defined Booleen and no Boolean. (not even speaking about BOOLEAN, booleen ...)

 

For true multi-language support, they should do:

typedef enum { ... } Boolean, Booleen, IkiDegerli, <translation>, <translation>, ...;

 what about baleen while we're at it?

Surely just using base-2 solves all this. 1 is 1 and 0 is 0, is it not?

 Or we could use base 1.

1 is 1 and 0 is  

1 is 1, 0 does not exist, the base-1 system is non positional. Counting goes 1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, 111111, 1111111, 11111111, 111111111, 111111111, and so on.