OpenEuphoria

Re: Boolean Variable Type

• Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET> Feb 17, 2000
• 560 views

----- Original Message -----
From: Lewis Townsend <keroltarr at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Boolean Variable Type


> Hello,
>
> > >But I don't really care if it
> > >takes up 32 bytes of space or not.
> >
> >I think would really concern me if it took up 32 bytes of space...
unless
> >you meant to say 32 bits (4 bytes).    8^)
>
> Oops, yes, I meant bits @@ <-- me rolling eyes
>
> >But I'd have to agree that the memory 'wasted' on storing flags in an
> >integer is trivial these days.  And I would bet that there would be a
> >performance hit from the need to (internally) mask a bit to determine a
> >boolean value.
> >
> >-- Brian
>
> Wouldn't the space needed to store the memory address
> of the bool have to be a 32 bit value anyway?
> I considdered offering a solution in which you would
> peek and poke to memory to store and retrieve boolean
> values. I then realized that the memory address would
> still have to be stored in a value much greater than
> one bit in size.

True, but that one 32bit memory addy is the addy for 32 boolean bits, but if
you add one to the addy, you get another 32bits of boolean, which is where
the only payoff is. If there is a payoff, once you count the masking and
such involved. I got too accustomed to bytebool and wordbool tho, for more
fuzzy uses, so i wouldn't use bitbools. Besides, like you said, with 96Meg
of memory, and running a hog OS (any modern OS), throwing 100 bytes at
boolean storage isn't a problem anymore.

Kat