On 28-Mar-2012 15:20, Michael Witten wrote:
However, it seems to me that toggling the value with the idiom:
--b;
is aesthetically preferable to the more elaborate:
b = !b;
Aesthetically, not logically. Neither of these makes the least bit of
sense:
one less than False
one less than True
A better solution for the aesthetics would have been (it is a bit late
now) to implement the missing unary negation operator:
!!b; //T->F, F->T
That operator would save even more program characters for the other int
types, where it would be equivalent to:
(i==0 ? 1 : 0);
Regards,
David Mathog
mat...@caltech.edu
Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech
