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

Reply via email to