On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:39:04AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > | Obviously, I'm in a pedantic mood. These two are casts:
> > | (bool)1;
> > | static_cast<bool>(1);
> > | This one isn't:
> > | bool(1);
> >
> > I think I still prefere this last one.
>
> When we compile with a C++ compiler then it casts with
> a static_cast<bool> a int to bool, therefore the warning.
That translates to 'nothing' in the binary.
No exactly a loss of performance.
> When we use a C compiler then it uses the C-style cast (bool),
> so I think the correctest way is to use static_cast<bool>,
> but this is so ugly that I would prefer (bool).
bool(..) is just fine - if anything is needed at all.
> I'm not sure if the bool constructor -bool::bool(int)-
> is really as fast as the casts.
It is equivalent to the static_cast. (and also not visible in the
binary).
> enum type{...}
> bool match(type a, type b) { return (a & b); }
>
> Does this not mean a==b? So why not write it down?
Not for enum { a = 2, b = 6 }
Andre'
