3 ms·
The code in question is: if (sprtemp[frame].rotate == false) Note that this is explicitly comparing two values, which is very different from checking whet
by munchler 8mo ago
The code in question is:
if (sprtemp[frame].rotate == false)
Note that this is explicitly comparing two values, which is very different from checking whether a single value is true. Surely you wouldn't expect -1 == 0 to evaluate to true.
- robinsonb5 8mo ago> Surely you wouldn't expect -1 == 0 to evaluate to true. I wouldn't, no - but that's exactly what's happening in the test case. Likewise, I wouldn't expect -1 == 1 to evaluate to true, but here we are. The strict semantics of the new bool type may very well be "correct", and the reversed-test logic used by the compiler is certainly understandable and defensible - but given the long-established practice with integer types - i.e "if(some_var) {...}" and "if(!some_var) {...}" - that non-zero is "true" and zero is "false", it's a shame that the new type is inconsistent with that.
- lowbloodsugar 8mo ago>Surely you wouldn't expect -1 == 0 to evaluate to true. No, but that's not what happened. What happened was that 255 == 0 was true. That's a bug.