Related
I was messing around with some c++ code after learning that you cannot increment booleans in the standard. I thought incrementing booleans would be useful because I like compacting functions if I can and
unsigned char b = 0; //type doesn't really matter assuming no overflow
while (...) {
if (b++) //do something
...}
is sometimes useful to have, but it would be nice to not have to worry about integer overflow. Since booleans cannot take on any value besides 0 or 1, I thought that perhaps this would work. Of course, you could just have a boolean assigned to 1 after you do your operation but that takes an extra line of code.
Anyway, I thought about how I might achieve this a different way and I came up with this.
bool b = 0;
while (...)
if (b & (b=1)) ...
This turned out to always evaluate to true, even on the first pass through. I thought - sure, its just doing the bitwise operator from right to left, except that when I swapped the order, it did the same thing.
So my question is, how is this expression being evaluated so that it simplifies to always being true?
As an aside, the way to do what I wanted is like this I guess:
bool b = 0;
while (...) if (!b && !(b=1)) //code executes every time except the first iteration
There's a way to get it to only execute once, also.
Or just do the actually readable and obvious solution.
bool b = 0;
while (...) {
if (b) {} else {b=1;}
}
This is what std::exchange is for:
if (std::exchange(b, true)) {
// b was already true
}
As mentioned, sequencing rules mean that b & (b=1) is undefined behaviour in both C and C++. You can't modify a variable and read from it "without proper separation" (e.g., as separate statements).
There is no "strange behavior" here. The & operator, in your case is a bitwise arithmetic operator. These operator are commutative, so both operand must be evaluated before computing the resulting value.
As mentioned earlier, this is considered as undefined behavior, as the standard does not prevent computing + loading into a register the left operand, before doing the same to the second, or doing so in reverse order.
If you are using C++14 or above, you could use std::exchange do achieve this, or re-implement it quite easily using the following :
bool exchange_bool(bool &var, bool &&val) {
bool ret = var;
var = val;
return ret;
}
If you end up re-implementing it, consider using template instead of hard-coded types.
As a proper answer to your question :
So my question is, how is this expression being evaluated so that it simplifies to always being true?
It does not simplify, if we strictly follow the standard, but I'd guess you are always using the same compiler, which end up producing the same output.
Side point: You should not "compact" functions. Most of the time the price of this is less readability. This might be fine if you're the only dev working on a project, but on bigger project, or if you come back to your code later, that could be an issue. Last but not least, "compact" function are more error prone, because of their lack of readability.
If you really want shorter function, you should consider using sub-function that will handle part of the function computation. This would enable you to write short function, to quickly fix or update behavior, without impacting clarity.
I don't see what meaning you can assign to a "bitwise increment" operator. If I am right, what you achieve is just setting the low-order bit, which is done by b|= 1 (following the C conventions, this could have been defined as a unary b||, but the || was assigned another purpose). But I don't feel that this is a useful bitwise operation, and it can increment only once. IMO the standard increment operator is more bitwise.
If your goal was in fact to "increment" a boolean variable, i.e. set it to true (prefix or postfix), b= b || true is a way. (There is no "logical OR assignement" b||= true, and even less a "logical increment" b||||.)
Is there a more concise way to write the second line of this function without repeating a reduntantly?
void myfunc()
{
bool a = false; // Assume that this won't alway be hardcoded to false.
a = !a;
}
Is there a more concise way to write the second line of this function without repeating a reduntantly?
! is an unary operator, you cannot associate it with = if this is what you expected.
But you can do something like a ^= true;, this is not a more concise way but this is without repeating a redundantly. Anyway this is not a good way to do contrarily to a = !a; which is much more readable
Well, I don't really see the value of doing so, but you could use xor or a simple decrement. Both of these work.
a ^= 1;
a--;
Then you won't have to repeat a.
But if you want it to be very clear, consider using a function:
void flip(bool *b)
{
(*b)--;
}
bool b = true;
flip(&b);
In C++, you can use references
void flip(bool &b)
{
b--;
}
bool b = true;
flip(b);
Or write a macro. Actually, macros are pretty handy for solving duplication problems. Although, I almost never use them for that, since it's simply rarely worth the effort. I wrote one macro to avoid duplication for malloc calls. Such a call typically look like this:
int *x = malloc(12 * sizeof *x);
You can avoid the duplication with this:
#define ALLOC(p, n) \
((p) = malloc((n) * sizeof *(p)))
But even this is something I hesitate to use.
To be honest, it's not really a problem worth solving. :)
The only possible answer is: unfortunately not.
The unary operator ! is actually concise enough, and any other trick would lead to unreadable code.
Any other shortcut form, for example for binary operators such as + or *:
a += 5;
b *= 7;
mantain the reference to the original meaning of theoperator: multiplication and addition respectively.
In your sentence:
without repeating a reduntantly
there's the wrong assumption that a is redundant in case the compiler could be instructed to negate a without repeating the variable name. No: it tells to people reading the code (even to yourself, for example an year later!) that the variable to be negated is a. And since C grammar doesn't define any syntactic sugar for logical negation operator, a is not redundant at all.
I've got just a simple question about bitwise AND in C++.
I'm using it for single bits (a&8, a&4, a&2, a&1, etc.) and I want to get bool value as a return (if there's 1 on the position).
I may divide it by a number (like (a&8)/8), but it dosn't really look nice in my code (especially, that I'm using arrays and long names of variables).
Is there any other, better, way to code it?
Thanks in advance.
The best way is to convert the expression to a boolean value. This improves readability:
bool result;
result = 0 != (a & 8);
The comparison with 0 might be unnecessary since the compiled code will write true or false in the variable b. But this avoids a warning like:
warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
The order or the comparison argument might be reversed if you don't like Yoda speech. It's a style that can help avoid accidental assignments in C programming language.
If you want to be explicit, compare with 0:
const bool maskSet = (a & 8) != 0;
That's the cleanest way I know of. Dividing is much stranger, since that still leaves the conversion from an integer to a boolean implicit. The comparison operator makes it explicit.
[This question is related to but not the same as this one.]
If I try to use values of certain types as boolean expressions, I get a warning. Rather than suppress the warning, I sometimes use the ternary operator (?:) to convert to a bool. Using two not operators (!!) seems to do the same thing.
Here's what I mean:
typedef long T; // similar warning with void * or double
T t = 0;
bool b = t; // performance warning: forcing 'long' value to 'bool'
b = t ? true : false; // ok
b = !!t; // any different?
So, does the double-not technique really do the same thing? Is it any more or less safe than the ternary technique? Is this technique equally safe with non-integral types (e.g., with void * or double for T)?
I'm not asking if !!t is good style. I am asking if it is semantically different than t ? true : false.
The argument of the ! operator and the first argument of the ternary operator are both implicitly converted to bool, so !! and ?: are IMO silly redundant decorations of the cast. I vote for
b = (t != 0);
No implicit conversions.
Alternatively, you can do this: bool b = (t != 0)
Careful!
A boolean is about truth and falseness.
An integer is about whole numbers.
Those are very distinct concepts:
Truth and falseness is about deciding stuff.
Numbers are about counting stuff.
When bridging those concepts, it should be done explicitly. I like Dima's version best:
b = (t != 0);
That code clearly says: Compare two numbers and store the truth-value in a boolean.
All valid techniques, all will generate the same code.
Personally, I just disable the warning so I can use the cleanest syntax. Casting to a bool is not something I'm worried about doing accidentally.
Yes it is safe.
0 is interpreted as false, everthing else is true,
hence !5 comes out as a false
!0 comes out as true
so !!5 comes out as true
I would not use:
bool b = !!t;
That is the least readable way (and thus the hardest to maintain)
The others depend on the situation.
If you are converting to use in a bool expression only.
bool b = t ? true : false;
if (b)
{
doSomething();
}
Then I would let the language do it for you:
if (t)
{
doSomething();
}
If you are actually storing a boolean value. Then first I would wonder why you have a long in the first places that requires the cast. Assuming you need the long and the bool value I would consider all the following depending on the situation.
bool b = t ? true : false; // Short and too the point.
// But not everybody groks this especially beginners.
bool b = (t != 0); // Gives the exact meaning of what you want to do.
bool b = static_cast<bool>(t); // Implies that t has no semantic meaning
// except as a bool in this context.
Summary:
Use what provides the most meaning for the context you are in.
Try and make it obvious what you are doing
I recommend never suppressing that warning, and never using a c cast (bool) to suppress it. The conversions may not always be called as you assume.
There is a difference between an expression that evaluates to true and a boolean of that value.
Both !! and ternary take getting used to, but will do the job similarly, if you do not want to define internal types with overloaded casts to bool.
Dima's approach is fine too, since it assigns the value of an expression to a bool.
If you're worried about the warning, you can also force the cast: bool b = (bool)t;
I really hate !!t!!!!!!. It smacks of the worst thing about C and C++, the temptation to be too clever by half with your syntax.
bool b(t != 0); // Is the best way IMHO, it explicitly shows what is happening.
Comparison to 0 doesn't work so well.
Which comes back -- why !! vs. ternary?
class foo { public: explicit operator bool () ; };
foo f;
auto a = f != 0; // invalid operands to binary expression ('foo' and 'int')
auto b = f ? true : false; // ok
auto c = !!f; // ok
!! may be compact, but I think it is unnecessarily complicated. Better to disable the warning or use the ternary operator, in my opinion.
I would use b = (0 != t) -- at least any sane person can read it easily. If I would see double dang in the code, I would be pretty much surprised.
Disable the warning.
Write for clarity first; then profile; then optimize for speed, where required.
!! is only useful when you're using a boolean expression in arithmetic fashion, e.g.:
c = 3 + !!extra; //3 or 4
(Whose style is a different discussion.) When all you need is a boolean expression, the !! is redundant. Writing
bool b = !!extra;
makes as much sense as:
if (!!extra) { ... }
I recommend to use
if (x != 0)
or
if (x != NULL)
instead of if(x); it's more understandable and readable.
The double not feels funny to me and in debug code will be very different than in optimized code.
If you're in love with !! you could always Macro it.
#define LONGTOBOOL(x) (!!(x))
(as an aside, the ternary operator is what I favor in these cases)
I would use bool b = t and leave the compile warning in, commenting on this particular line's safety. Disabling the warning may bite you in the butt in another part of the code.
Is there any reason not to use the bitwise operators &, |, and ^ for "bool" values in C++?
I sometimes run into situations where I want exactly one of two conditions to be true (XOR), so I just throw the ^ operator into a conditional expression. I also sometimes want all parts of a condition to be evaluated whether the result is true or not (rather than short-circuiting), so I use & and |. I also need to accumulate Boolean values sometimes, and &= and |= can be quite useful.
I've gotten a few raised eyebrows when doing this, but the code is still meaningful and cleaner than it would be otherwise. Is there any reason NOT to use these for bools? Are there any modern compilers that give bad results for this?
|| and && are boolean operators and the built-in ones are guaranteed to return either true or false. Nothing else.
|, & and ^ are bitwise operators. When the domain of numbers you operate on is just 1 and 0, then they are exactly the same, but in cases where your booleans are not strictly 1 and 0 – as is the case with the C language – you may end up with some behavior you didn't want. For instance:
BOOL two = 2;
BOOL one = 1;
BOOL and = two & one; //and = 0
BOOL cand = two && one; //cand = 1
In C++, however, the bool type is guaranteed to be only either a true or a false (which convert implicitly to respectively 1 and 0), so it's less of a worry from this stance, but the fact that people aren't used to seeing such things in code makes a good argument for not doing it. Just say b = b && x and be done with it.
Two main reasons. In short, consider carefully; there could be a good reason for it, but if there is be VERY explicit in your comments because it can be brittle and, as you say yourself, people aren't generally used to seeing code like this.
Bitwise xor != Logical xor (except for 0 and 1)
Firstly, if you are operating on values other than false and true (or 0 and 1, as integers), the ^ operator can introduce behavior not equivalent to a logical xor. For example:
int one = 1;
int two = 2;
// bitwise xor
if (one ^ two)
{
// executes because expression = 3 and any non-zero integer evaluates to true
}
// logical xor; more correctly would be coded as
// if (bool(one) != bool(two))
// but spelled out to be explicit in the context of the problem
if ((one && !two) || (!one && two))
{
// does not execute b/c expression = ((true && false) || (false && true))
// which evaluates to false
}
Credit to user #Patrick for expressing this first.
Order of operations
Second, |, &, and ^, as bitwise operators, do not short-circuit. In addition, multiple bitwise operators chained together in a single statement -- even with explicit parentheses -- can be reordered by optimizing compilers, because all 3 operations are normally commutative. This is important if the order of the operations matters.
In other words
bool result = true;
result = result && a() && b();
// will not call a() if result false, will not call b() if result or a() false
will not always give the same result (or end state) as
bool result = true;
result &= (a() & b());
// a() and b() both will be called, but not necessarily in that order in an
// optimizing compiler
This is especially important because you may not control methods a() and b(), or somebody else may come along and change them later not understanding the dependency, and cause a nasty (and often release-build only) bug.
The raised eyebrows should tell you enough to stop doing it. You don't write the code for the compiler, you write it for your fellow programmers first and then for the compiler. Even if the compilers work, surprising other people is not what you want - bitwise operators are for bit operations not for bools.
I suppose you also eat apples with a fork? It works but it surprises people so it's better not to do it.
I think
a != b
is what you want
Disadvantages of the bitlevel operators.
You ask:
“Is there any reason not to use the bitwise operators &, |, and ^ for "bool" values in C++? ”
Yes, the logical operators, that is the built-in high level boolean operators !, && and ||, offer the following advantages:
Guaranteed conversion of arguments to bool, i.e. to 0 and 1 ordinal value.
Guaranteed short circuit evaluation where expression evaluation stops as soon as the final result is known.
This can be interpreted as a tree-value logic, with True, False and Indeterminate.
Readable textual equivalents not, and and or, even if I don't use them myself.
As reader Antimony notes in a comment also the bitlevel operators have alternative tokens, namely bitand, bitor, xor and compl, but in my opinion these are less readable than and, or and not.
Simply put, each such advantage of the high level operators is a disadvantage of the bitlevel operators.
In particular, since the bitwise operators lack argument conversion to 0/1 you get e.g. 1 & 2 → 0, while 1 && 2 → true. Also ^, bitwise exclusive or, can misbehave in this way. Regarded as boolean values 1 and 2 are the same, namely true, but regarded as bitpatterns they're different.
How to express logical either/or in C++.
You then provide a bit of background for the question,
“I sometimes run into situations where I want exactly one of two conditions to be true (XOR), so I just throw the ^ operator into a conditional expression.”
Well, the bitwise operators have higher precedence than the logical operators. This means in particular that in a mixed expression such as
a && b ^ c
you get the perhaps unexpected result a && (b ^ c).
Instead write just
(a && b) != c
expressing more concisely what you mean.
For the multiple argument either/or there is no C++ operator that does the job. For example, if you write a ^ b ^ c than that is not an expression that says “either a, b or c is true“. Instead it says, “An odd number of a, b and c are true“, which might be 1 of them or all 3…
To express the general either/or when a, b and c are of type bool, just write
(a + b + c) == 1
or, with non-bool arguments, convert them to bool:
(!!a + !!b + !!c) == 1
Using &= to accumulate boolean results.
You further elaborate,
“I also need to accumulate Boolean values sometimes, and &= and |=? can be quite useful.”
Well, this corresponds to checking whether respectively all or any condition is satisfied, and de Morgan’s law tells you how to go from one to the other. I.e. you only need one of them. You could in principle use *= as a &&=-operator (for as good old George Boole discovered, logical AND can very easily be expressed as multiplication), but I think that that would perplex and perhaps mislead maintainers of the code.
Consider also:
struct Bool
{
bool value;
void operator&=( bool const v ) { value = value && v; }
operator bool() const { return value; }
};
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
using namespace std;
Bool a = {true};
a &= true || false;
a &= 1234;
cout << boolalpha << a << endl;
bool b = {true};
b &= true || false;
b &= 1234;
cout << boolalpha << b << endl;
}
Output with Visual C++ 11.0 and g++ 4.7.1:
true
false
The reason for the difference in results is that the bitlevel &= does not provide a conversion to bool of its right hand side argument.
So, which of these results do you desire for your use of &=?
If the former, true, then better define an operator (e.g. as above) or named function, or use an explicit conversion of the right hand side expression, or write the update in full.
Contrary to Patrick's answer, C++ has no ^^ operator for performing a short-circuiting exclusive or. If you think about it for a second, having a ^^ operator wouldn't make sense anyway: with exclusive or, the result always depends on both operands. However, Patrick's warning about non-bool "Boolean" types holds equally well when comparing 1 & 2 to 1 && 2. One classic example of this is the Windows GetMessage() function, which returns a tri-state BOOL: nonzero, 0, or -1.
Using & instead of && and | instead of || is not an uncommon typo, so if you are deliberately doing it, it deserves a comment saying why.
Patrick made good points, and I'm not going to repeat them. However might I suggest reducing 'if' statements to readable english wherever possible by using well-named boolean vars.For example, and this is using boolean operators but you could equally use bitwise and name the bools appropriately:
bool onlyAIsTrue = (a && !b); // you could use bitwise XOR here
bool onlyBIsTrue = (b && !a); // and not need this second line
if (onlyAIsTrue || onlyBIsTrue)
{
.. stuff ..
}
You might think that using a boolean seems unnecessary, but it helps with two main things:
Your code is easier to understand because the intermediate boolean for the 'if' condition makes the intention of the condition more explicit.
If you are using non-standard or unexpected code, such as bitwise operators on boolean values, people can much more easily see why you've done this.
EDIT: You didnt explicitly say you wanted the conditionals for 'if' statements (although this seems most likely), that was my assumption. But my suggestion of an intermediate boolean value still stands.
Using bitwise operations for bool helps save unnecessary branch prediction logic by the processor, resulting from a 'cmp' instruction brought in by logical operations.
Replacing the logical with bitwise operations (where all operands are bool) generates more efficient code offering the same result. The efficiency ideally should outweigh all the short-circuit benefits that can be leveraged in the ordering using logical operations.
This can make code a bit un-readable albeit the programmer should comment it with reasons why it was done so.
IIRC, many C++ compilers will warn when attempting to cast the result of a bitwise operation as a bool. You would have to use a type cast to make the compiler happy.
Using a bitwise operation in an if expression would serve the same criticism, though perhaps not by the compiler. Any non-zero value is considered true, so something like "if (7 & 3)" will be true. This behavior may be acceptable in Perl, but C/C++ are very explicit languages. I think the Spock eyebrow is due diligence. :) I would append "== 0" or "!= 0" to make it perfectly clear what your objective was.
But anyway, it sounds like a personal preference. I would run the code through lint or similar tool and see if it also thinks it's an unwise strategy. Personally, it reads like a coding mistake.