World: r3wp

Lad +1


The REOL Syntax project is very important in this regard, and documenting 
the differences between the clones. Being the fastest VM my not be 
John's goal, if it means other tradeoffs.

Well, sure, the speed may not be the most important property.

Copying a cyclic block:

>> blk: [a b c]
== [a b c]
>> insert/only blk blk
== [a b c]
>> blk
== [[...] a b c]
>> copy blk
== [[[...] a b c] a b c]

That's not correct, right?

Ah, it is. I just realized, when I wrote it. :)

One question to library wrapping. I have a function, which should 
return a bool from C level, according to if the communication card 
is open, or not. When I am able to open the card, it returns 1 (mapped 
to R2 integer!), if not, it returns  30605312 - does that integer 
make any sence? I mean, does it e.g. translate to some C level slot, 
overflow, or -1 value? Just curious ...

w> to binary! 30605312 
== #{0000000001D30000}

Maybe you read too many bits?

I can't influence it, it is just result from the mapped function 
 C level code bool (dunno how it is defined) to R2's integer! value. 
Was just curious ....

Pekr, bool in C is usually of char type so you should try to set 
the returned value in your routine! spec to char.

Cyphre: thanks, will try that ...

Isn't it usually integer? It's must be defined somewhere btw.

In win.h include file in LCC compiler;
typedef int BOOL;
typedef unsigned char BOOLEAN;

BOOL != bool.

bool is in C since C99, and it's, in fact, *drumroll* a typedef/#define 
for _Bool

(before C99, there's simply no standard boolean type available in 
C)

Yep, WG14/N869 January 18, 1999 Page 257
#define bool _Bool

There are some other definitions in different include files:

typedef  enum _BoolValue {True=1, False=0, BoolValue_Max=2147483647L 
} BoolValue;
typedef int bool;  //lowercase
typedef unsigned char boolean;

typedef enum { false, true } bool;  // this is for Borland C I guess

BOOL != bool

 - this is strange, I never found any note mentioning other datatype 
 than int for bool. While Pekr may be experiencing bool to be defined 
 as something smaller, all the documentation I found mentions it should 
 be int.

The C standard is (as always) very vague and doesn't specify a particular 
storage size. I think it just defines that _Bool must be able to 
hold 0 and 1.

So when encountering a "bool", one really has to ask what kind of 
bool that is. More often than not, it won't be a C99 _Bool and will 
actually be int-sized.

If it is a C99 _Bool, it will typically be char-sized, though.

And I think Pekr really has a different case, because he's trying 
to use a C++ lib. C++ really has a bool, and I think it's char-sized 
(but I don't know whether that's impl-specific in C++ or defined 
in the C++ standard).

If it is a C99 _Bool, it will typically be char-sized, though.
 - hmm, I found explicitly stated that it should be int

The same for C++

I guess that other sizes are atypical and not exactly respecting 
the standard

when it is int it could be 64bit or 32bit.. depend on the compiler 
and the OS. 

Pekr: So may be the C library returns a 64bit integer: #{0000000001D30000} 
= #{00000000 - 01D30000}, the left part is 0 (=false) the second 
part is just a number from stack.. 
When you get in from R2 it become #{01D30000} = 30605312

Or it's a 16 bit return, and the machine, it's from, is little endian, 
where World is big endian. Then it's the last 4 zeros in the result, 
that is the bool.

That could be too.

Lad, In C I tried:
#include <stdbool.h>
int main (int argc, const char * argv[]) {
    printf ("bool length %d\n", sizeof(bool));
    return 0;
}

The output was:
bool length 1

So it is usually char, at least in GNU C/C++

I haven't found any explicit type definition in the C99 though.

{"If it is a C99 _Bool, it will typically be char-sized, though." 
-- hmm, I found explicitly stated that it should be int}

Where?

A slightly better test would be:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {printf("%ld\n", sizeof(_Bool)); 
return 0;}


And then compile that in C99 mode (i.e. -std=c99 for GCC; but C89/90 
compilers will bark on the unknown _Bool keyword anyway).


Better, because there exist(ed) a few stdbool.h versions prior to 
the final C99 standard which used e.g. unsigned integers for bools. 
Should be gone/fixed by now, but one never knows :)

Under OS X using gcc, I get bool length 1 both with Cyphre and Andreas 
versions, and also with or without -std=c99 option.

Yes, I also used the C99 compiler flag. Andreas version is more correct 
test ofcourse.