DBG bool

[Mrugalla]

DBG would be slightly cooler if bools wouldn’t have to be casted to int

[matkatmusic]

are you hoping for some kind of implicit conversion from true to "true" ?

a String(bool) constructor, so to speak.

You can just do DBG( "some text: " << (boolExpr ? "true" : "false") );

[Mrugalla]

no, it would be enough if it showed 0 and 1. and i know how to cast, but i felt like it would be a minor improvement, making statements a bit shorter sometimes

edit:

bool someState;
bool someOtherState;
float someParameter;
float someOtherParameter;

DBG(someState << ", " << someOtherState << ", " << someParameter << ", " << someOtherParameter);

lines like this are long enough even without the need to cast stuff

[t0m]

Breaking change (minor): String (bool) constructor explicitly deleted

Change The String (bool) constructor and operator<< (String&, bool) have been explicitly deleted. Possible Issues Previous code which relied on an implicit bool to int type conversion to produce a String will not compile. Workaround Cast your bool to an integer to generate a string representation of it. Rationale Letting things implicitly convert to bool to produce a String opens the door to all kinds of nasty type conversion edge cases. Furthermore, before this change, MacOS would automati…

[Mrugalla]

ok then. if it breaks too many other things let’s just keep it like this thanks for the explanation

[LiamG]

I’m no expert on macros, but if we can’t overload the String(bool) constructor, wouldn’t it be possible to overload the DBG function instead so that there is a second version to accept bools? It’s frustrating having to type out DBG( "some text: " << (boolExpr ? "true" : "false") ); every time.

[asimilon]

I don’t think you can overload macros and DBG is a macro iirc, but why not just create a simple macro that does what you have to keep typing if it’s a pain?

#define DBOOL(V) (V ? "true" : "false")

Job done