[Haskell-cafe] Bool is not...safe?!
aquagnu at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 06:28:42 UTC 2018
There is an opinion that Bool type has problems. It's "dangerous",
because it's not good to be used as flag for success/fail result. I read
was shocked. How popular is such opinion? Is it true, that bool is "bad"
As I understand arguments of the post, Bool is bad because: 1) you don't
know what does True/False mean 2) after comparison you get bit (!) only
but then you may need to "recover" the comparing value which was
"shrink" to bit already.
Let's begin from 2. As I understand the author talks about one register
computers ;) if he have to "recover" a value. But shown examples are in
ML, where function arguments are bound to all function body, so you
don't need to "recover" anything, what was bound as function argument or
with "let". Sounds totally weird and more close to psychology than to CS :)
Argument #1 is more interesting.
A Boolean,/b/, is either*true*, or *false*; that’s it. There is
no/information/carried by a Boolean beyond its value, and that’s the
rub. As Conor McBride puts it, to make use of a Boolean you have to
know its/provenance/so that you can know what it/means./
Really, what does True/False mean? How to find semantic of True? It's
very simple, because there is A) contract/interface which interprets
True/False and also B) there is a help from science.
A) There are a lot of languages (Unix shell, ML, Basic, Haskell,
C/C++...) with short-circuit expressions. Ex.,
e1 || e2
e1 && e2
e1 orelse e2
where interface is described by its operations: ||, &&, orelse, etc and
it has absolutely accurate and clear meaning: "||" executes e2 iff e1
*fails, was not success*. "&&" executes e2 iff e1 was succeeded. I don't
use words "True" and "False". Because, in different languages marker of
success/fail is different. For example, in Bash, the fail is any integer
except 0. In Haskell fail is False. In C is 0... What does mean False
(and True) is defined by contract/interface of short-circuit operations,
related to boolean algebra. A rare case when type is bound with
semantic! We read them literally (native English): e1 or-else e2!
*This means that using of False to indicate success - is error! And no
way to miss provenance/knowledge what True or False means.*
(the same: what does Right/False mean?)
B) The help from science. Math (and CS) has own history. And one of its
mail-stones was birth of formal logic and then of Boolean algebra. CS
implemented those in declarative languages (Prolog, for example). If we
have some predicate in Prolog, "true" for that predicate means "it was
achieved", as goal. If that predicate has side-effects, "true" means it
was achieved, i.e. all its steps (side-effects) were successfully
executed. Predicate write_text_to_file/2 is "true" when it wrote text to
file. And no way to return False on success or to think about sacral
sense of True/False :) And that sense traditionally is the same in all
programming language. If you invert it, you deny contract, semantic and
begin to use "inverted" logic :)
We can repeat the same logic with 3.1415926.. What does it mean?
Meaning, semantic is described, but contract/interface: this magic
irrational was born from part of algebra, called trigonometry. And this
algebra defines semantic of Pi, not programmer's usage of Pi,
programming context, etc. True/False semantic is defining by its
algebra: boolean. So, programmer should not change their semantic, am I
So, my question is: is this post a april 1st trolling or author was
Best regards, Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe