Re: equality operator question

On 6 May, 16:13, Eberhard Schefold <eberhard.schef...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Stefan Ram wrote:

> > =A0 That's why a sentence is a better name for a predicate than
=BBa=AB.=

>
> > if( server_is_up() )...
>
> > =A0 Now, this is more natural-language like than
>
> > if( server_is_up() =3D=3D true )...
>
> Generally I certainly agree with Lionel and you. But it's not always
> that easy. Sometimes you don't have control over the naming, and even >
if=
 you have, often the return value only indicates success or failure > of a
l=
arger procedure with lots of side effects, say,

well in that case the function is badly named and has
an odd return type


> =A0 =A0 if( GenerateRevenueRe****ts() )
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> I wouldn't want to change that name into something more "boolean", say,
>
> =A0 =A0 if( GenerateRevenueRe****tsWasSuccessful() )
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> It's not clear now if the function actually performs the action or only
> queries for its status. So, even with all the arguments, I still
> understand why some people might find
>
> =A0 =A0 if( GenerateRevenueRe****ts() =3D=3D true )
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...
>
> clearer to understand.

I'd be tempted to hide the truth  :-)

    const bool success =3D true;

    if (GenerateRevenueRe****ts() =3D=3D success)

I've done this with APIs that use boolean parameters.

  const bool erase_background =3D true;

  InvalidateRect (hwnd, 0, erase_background);




--
Nick Keighley