AW: Boolean constants

you are right - it crashes the compiler (versions 13 and 14 to answer Gaius question as well).

And I only meant that a form "CONST LogicalX = (1 = 1);" is not the best way to define the value of a boolean constant. It is legal but not good style (at least in my personal view).

Dear Michael,

All are legal Modula-2 constant definitions. It is not clear to me why you write “at least the line "Logical2 = NOT Logical1;" and "Logical3 = NOT TRUE;" should be OK.” And as there is nothing to be executed at run time, by crash you mean the compiler crashes without an error message?

Cheers,

Andreas

ETH Zurich

Prof. em. Dr. Andreas Fischlin

Formerly IPCC Vice-Chair WGII

Systems Ecology - Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics

CHN E 24

Universitaetstrasse 16

8092 Zurich

SWITZERLAND

andreas.fischlin@env.ethz.ch

www.sysecol.ethz.ch/people/andreas.fischlin.html

+41 44 633-6090 phone

+41 79 595-4050 mobile

Make it as simple as possible, but distrust it!

________________________________________________________________________

On 25 Aug 2024, at 11:09, Michael Riedl <udo-michael.riedl@t-online.de> wrote:

Hallo Gaius,

can you have a look on the following small piece of code:

MODULE TestBool;

CONST Logical1 = TRUE;

      Logical2 = NOT Logical1; (* crash *)
      Logical3 = NOT TRUE;     (* crash *)

      Logical4 = (1 = 0);      (* crash *)
      Logical5 = (1 = 1);      (* crash *)
BEGIN
END TestBool.

I would think that at least the line "Logical2 = NOT Logical1;" and "Logical3 = NOT TRUE;" should be OK.

The lines with Logical4 and Logical5 are for sure "quick and dirty" but handy to quickly switch off and on some code segments during development (would not do that in production code).

Gruß / Greetings

Michael

From:	address@hidden
Subject:	AW: Boolean constants
Date:	Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:44:41 +0200 (CEST)