Using boolean values in C - c

Question

C doesn't have any built-in boolean types. What's the best way to use them in C?

Answer 1

From best to worse:
Option 1 (C99 and newer)
#include <stdbool.h>
Option 2
typedef enum { false, true } bool;
Option 3
typedef int bool;
enum { false, true };
Option 4
typedef int bool;
#define true 1
#define false 0
Explanation
Option 1 will work only if you use C99 (or newer) and it's the "standard way" to do it. Choose this if possible.
Options 2, 3 and 4 will have in practice the same identical behavior. #2 and #3 don't use #defines though, which in my opinion is better.
If you are undecided, go with #1!

Answer 2

A few thoughts on booleans in C:
I'm old enough that I just use plain ints as my boolean type without any typedefs or special defines or enums for true/false values. If you follow my suggestion below on never comparing against boolean constants, then you only need to use 0/1 to initialize the flags anyway. However, such an approach may be deemed too reactionary in these modern times. In that case, one should definitely use <stdbool.h> since it at least has the benefit of being standardized.
Whatever the boolean constants are called, use them only for initialization. Never ever write something like
if (ready == TRUE) ...
while (empty == FALSE) ...
These can always be replaced by the clearer
if (ready) ...
while (!empty) ...
Note that these can actually reasonably and understandably be read out loud.
Give your boolean variables positive names, ie full instead of notfull. The latter leads to code that is difficult to read easily. Compare
if (full) ...
if (!full) ...
with
if (!notfull) ...
if (notfull) ...
Both of the former pair read naturally, while !notfull is awkward to read even as it is, and becomes much worse in more complex boolean expressions.
Boolean arguments should generally be avoided. Consider a function defined like this
void foo(bool option) { ... }
Within the body of the function, it is very clear what the argument means since it has a convenient, and hopefully meaningful, name. But, the call sites look like
foo(TRUE);
foo(FALSE):
Here, it's essentially impossible to tell what the parameter meant without always looking at the function definition or declaration, and it gets much worse as soon if you add even more boolean parameters. I suggest either
typedef enum { OPT_ON, OPT_OFF } foo_option;
void foo(foo_option option);
or
#define OPT_ON true
#define OPT_OFF false
void foo(bool option) { ... }
In either case, the call site now looks like
foo(OPT_ON);
foo(OPT_OFF);
which the reader has at least a chance of understanding without dredging up the definition of foo.

Answer 3

A boolean in C is an integer: zero for false and non-zero for true.
See also Boolean data type, section C, C++, Objective-C, AWK.

Answer 4

Here is the version that I used:
typedef enum { false = 0, true = !false } bool;
Because false only has one value, but a logical true could have many values, but technique sets true to be what the compiler will use for the opposite of false.
This takes care of the problem of someone coding something that would come down to this:
if (true == !false)
I think we would all agree that that is not a good practice, but for the one time cost of doing "true = !false" we eliminate that problem.
[EDIT] In the end I used:
typedef enum { myfalse = 0, mytrue = !myfalse } mybool;
to avoid name collision with other schemes that were defining true and false. But the concept remains the same.
[EDIT] To show conversion of integer to boolean:
mybool somebool;
int someint = 5;
somebool = !!someint;
The first (right most) ! converts the non-zero integer to a 0, then the second (left most) ! converts the 0 to a myfalse value. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to convert a zero integer.
[EDIT]
It is my style to use the explicit setting of a value in an enum when the specific value is required even if the default value would be the same. Example: Because false needs to be zero I use false = 0, rather than false,
[EDIT]
Show how to limit the size of enum when compiling with gcc:
typedef __attribute__((__packed__)) enum { myfalse = 0, mytrue = !myfalse } mybool;
That is, if someone does:
struct mystruct {
mybool somebool1;
mybool somebool2;
mybool somebool3;
mybool somebool4;
}
the size of the structure will be 4 bytes rather than 16 bytes.

Answer 5

If you are using a C99 compiler it has built-in support for bool types:
#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
bool b = false;
b = true;
}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_data_type

Answer 6

First things first. C, i.e. ISO/IEC 9899 has had a boolean type for 19 years now. That is way longer time than the expected length of the C programming career with amateur/academic/professional parts combined when visiting this question. Mine does surpass that by mere perhaps 1-2 years. It means that during the time that an average reader has learnt anything at all about C, C actually has had the boolean data type.
For the datatype, #include <stdbool.h>, and use true, false and bool. Or do not include it, and use _Bool, 1 and 0 instead.
There are various dangerous practices promoted in the other answers to this thread. I will address them:
typedef int bool;
#define true 1
#define false 0
This is no-no, because a casual reader - who did learn C within those 19 years - would expect that bool refers to the actual bool data type and would behave similarly, but it doesn't! For example
double a = ...;
bool b = a;
With C99 bool/ _Bool, b would be set to false iff a was zero, and true otherwise. C11 6.3.1.2p1
When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal to 0; otherwise, the result is 1. 59)
Footnotes
59) NaNs do not compare equal to 0 and thus convert to 1.
With the typedef in place, the double would be coerced to an int - if the value of the double isn't in the range for int, the behaviour is undefined.
Naturally the same applies to if true and false were declared in an enum.
What is even more dangerous is declaring
typedef enum bool {
false, true
} bool;
because now all values besides 1 and 0 are invalid, and should such a value be assigned to a variable of that type, the behaviour would be wholly undefined.
Therefore iff you cannot use C99 for some inexplicable reason, for boolean variables you should use:
type int and values 0 and 1 as-is; and carefully do domain conversions from any other values to these with double negation !!
or if you insist you don't remember that 0 is falsy and non-zero truish, at least use upper case so that they don't get confused with the C99 concepts: BOOL, TRUE and FALSE!

Answer 7

typedef enum {
false = 0,
true
} t_bool;

Answer 8

C has a boolean type: bool (at least for the last 10(!) years)
Include stdbool.h and true/false will work as expected.

Answer 9

Anything nonzero is evaluated to true in boolean operations, so you could just
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
and use the constants.

Answer 10

Just a complement to other answers and some clarification, if you are allowed to use C99.
+-------+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| Name | Characteristic | Dependence in stdbool.h | Value |
+-------+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| _Bool | Native type | Don't need header | |
+-------+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| bool | Macro | Yes | Translate to _Bool |
+-------+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| true | Macro | Yes | Translate to 1 |
+-------+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
| false | Macro | Yes | Translate to 0 |
+-------+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------+
Some of my preferences:
_Bool or bool? Both are fine, but bool looks better than the keyword _Bool.
Accepted values for bool and _Bool are: false or true. Assigning 0 or 1 instead of false or true is valid, but is harder to read and understand the logic flow.
Some info from the standard:
_Bool is NOT unsigned int, but is part of the group unsigned integer types. It is large enough to hold the values 0 or 1.
DO NOT, but yes, you are able to redefine bool true and false but sure is not a good idea. This ability is considered obsolescent and will be removed in future.
Assigning an scalar type (arithmetic types and pointer types) to _Bool or bool, if the scalar value is equal to 0 or compares to 0 it will be 0, otherwise the result is 1: _Bool x = 9; 9 is converted to 1 when assigned to x.
_Bool is 1 byte (8 bits), usually the programmer is tempted to try to use the other bits, but is not recommended, because the only guaranteed that is given is that only one bit is use to store data, not like type char that have 8 bits available.

Answer 11

Nowadays C99 supports boolean types but you need to #include <stdbool.h>.
Example:
#include <stdbool.h>
int main()
{
bool arr[2] = {true, false};
printf("%d\n", arr[0] && arr[1]);
printf("%d\n", arr[0] || arr[1]);
return 0;
}
Output:
0
1

Answer 12

It is this:
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0

Answer 13

You can use a char, or another small number container for it.
Pseudo-code
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
char bValue = TRUE;

Answer 14

You could use _Bool, but the return value must be an integer (1 for true, 0 for false).
However, It's recommended to include and use bool as in C++, as said in
this reply from daniweb forum, as well as this answer, from this other stackoverflow question:
_Bool: C99's boolean type. Using _Bool directly is only recommended if you're maintaining legacy code that already defines macros for bool, true, or false. Otherwise, those macros are standardized in the header. Include that header and you can use bool just like you would in C++.

Answer 15

Conditional expressions are considered to be true if they are non-zero, but the C standard requires that logical operators themselves return either 0 or 1.
#Tom: #define TRUE !FALSE is bad and is completely pointless. If the header file makes its way into compiled C++ code, then it can lead to problems:
void foo(bool flag);
...
int flag = TRUE;
foo(flag);
Some compilers will generate a warning about the int => bool conversion. Sometimes people avoid this by doing:
foo(flag == TRUE);
to force the expression to be a C++ bool. But if you #define TRUE !FALSE, you end up with:
foo(flag == !0);
which ends up doing an int-to-bool comparison that can trigger the warning anyway.

Answer 16

If you are using C99 then you can use the _Bool type. No #includes are necessary. You do need to treat it like an integer, though, where 1 is true and 0 is false.
You can then define TRUE and FALSE.
_Bool this_is_a_Boolean_var = 1;
//or using it with true and false
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
_Bool var = TRUE;

Answer 17

This is what I use:
enum {false, true};
typedef _Bool bool;
_Bool is a built in type in C. It's intended for boolean values.

Answer 18

I would use a C version test to use the builtin C99 boolean type if available or fallback on an ad hoc implementation otherwise.
#include <stdint.h>
#if __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L
# define bool uint_fast8_t
# define true 1
# define false 0
#else
# include <stdbool.h>
#endif /* __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L */

Answer 19

You can simply use the #define directive as follows:
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
#define NOT(arg) (arg == TRUE)? FALSE : TRUE
typedef int bool;
And use as follows:
bool isVisible = FALSE;
bool isWorking = TRUE;
isVisible = NOT(isVisible);
and so on