On: Catch-23: The New C Standard Sets the World on Fir...

[ericpauley]

> Finally, the checked arithmetic operations returning false on success is a horror show.

This seems in line with C conventions? Generally a 0 return code means success.

[wruza → ericpauley]

With int statuses, not with bools. It’s just a twisted logic in return value you have to deal with in your head.

“If checked operation has a status, then it failed.” - ok

“If checked operation [is true], then it failed.” - wat

[SAI_Peregrinus → wruza]

The checked operations ask "did an error occur?". If it's false, then the check passed and no error occurred. If it's true, then the check indicated an error.

[masklinn → wruza]

> With int statuses, not with bools

Which C historically did not have, so int played that role. The function is the same, and the existing idioms remain.

[wruza → masklinn]

I find it strange to introduce real bools (which these macros return according to their official signatures) and then to assign them a meaning of a still-nonexistent but widely used C type. At least my C intuition stumbles upon that immediately, no matter how long I think about it.

Ah, anyway, standard C/libc is basically a lost cause. It can’t get any worse, since you have to refer to a manual at every call to not step on a landmine.