John Maddock wrote:
Looks OK to me but anyone 'deprecating' this before I add it to the guidelines?
Are we sure that all compilers can evaluate this as compile time - otherwise while debugging users might find it a pest?
While this is a a workaround that disables the warning, I personally find it almost unreadable, and wouldn't want to encourage it's usage. In my mind when I see a ! I think "not", and have to always apply extra brain power to realise there are 2, and what it means.
Me too.
And me too. However due to coding styles I've been using I'm getting used to it.
I accept that this idiom has it's uses though - for example where the type being tested has an operator !() but no direct conversion to bool - although the "safe bool conversion idiom" used in Boost and elsewhere is IMO superior to this.
What's wrong with using either x != 0, or x == 0, depending on which result you want? It's pretty explicit , and exactly mirrors what the compiler has to do internally to convert x to a bool in the first place?
Nothing wrong for me personally, but I've heard some say it's too long and unnecessary as in assert(0 != ptr) all 5 characters can be replaced with just one ! I prefer explicit version - code for people first, then for computers. Best regards -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org