I got this function skeleton to implement, who the fuck return a Boolean value using a int64?!?

Why are C programmers so damn insistent of never using the _Bool type that is in the damn language since C99? Have they been living under a rock since 1999?

// An irritated C++ programmer

Ah yes, if(0)

@melezorus34 well, that part is for me to implement to be fair

int returnZero() return 0;

Cause it might not compile on a K&R compiler.

Well afaik Bool is just a typedef to an int anyway. But why int64? Why not just int?

@Lensflare yeah, but _Bool is an int type big enough to hold 0 and 1. And by letting the compiler know it explicitly is a _Bool it can help the optimization

@Demolishun haha yeah it will break all my codebase on my PDP-7

Are you seriously expecting C programmers to move on from the 80s/90s...

(lol jk, before I get massacred by the "low level" gang)

@RememberMe no one expects them tbh

@RememberMe Summoning @Fast-Nop

Now your gonna get it! lol

That can make sense in order to harmonise the APIs so that they have always the same return type. What's actually fucked up here is "i64" instead of int64_t. I take that "if (0)" BS as placeholder for later implementation of actual logic.

Also, I never use _Bool because using something else leaves the option of using 0 for "ok" and introducing more detailed error codes later. Like, getting the boolean info, but if a closer look is required, also a reason for "why not".

@RememberMe Of course not because that was before millennials entered the game and things still made sense. :P

Because when I'm programming in C it's often for hobby projects where I may actually encounter an ancient compiler.