Suggestion boolean as int like in C/C++

[DeafMan1983]

Hello everyone,

I would like to suggest in next version of language version should to pass int as boolean like in C/C++.

Example:
while statement:

while (done)
{
    ...
    done = 0;
}

or if else statement:

if (!SDL_CreateRendererAndWindow(...))
{
    ...
}

And more features - we would to request with int as boolean.

Because I already ported Gtk3 in C# without g_object_ref()
I use only g_type_check_instance_cast() because I have ported gboolean from int in C#

But I don't like to change to bool because I want to stay original porting 1:1.

example from gmarcos.h

#define FALSE (0)
#define TRUE (!FALSE)

But it seems int and it was typedef as gboolean.
How do I wish boolean should to have same to int like we wrote in C/C++ and C#.

I hope you understand my English. Sorry my bad English!

[tannergooding]

This would be a suggestion for https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang

It's worth noting, however, that this has been proposed before (having trouble finding the issue at the moment) and it is unlikely to ever happen. The decision to not allow integers to be implicitly treated as booleans was a very explicit design decision and avoids a number of issues that exist around such behavior. The behavior in C/C++ has led to various real world issues, CVEs, etc and modern languages have almost universally avoided that behavior accordingly.

[DeafMan1983]

Hello I know but I have made with ClangSharpPInvokeGenerator with Gtk3 . I think with class Convert:
From C source:

#define FALSE (0)
#define TRUE (!FALSE)

It becomes in C#

public static int FALSE = 0;
public static int TRUE = Convert.ToInt32(!Convert.ToBoolean(FALSE));

Is it a correct trick?

EDIT: It looks like in C/C++ Hahaha!

It is simple to know like in boolean :D

That is easy like charm.

[tannergooding]

You would typically do x != 0 to convert from integer to boolean and x ? 1 : 0 to convert from boolean to integer

[Clockwork-Muse]

@DeafMan1983 - Note that the reason why @tannergooding is specifically checking x != 0 is that in C/C++ 0 converts to false, and everything else converts to true. While constants or defines usually do explicitly use 1 for true, code doesn't necessarily always rely on that (most often when checking pointers, where null was traditionally 0 and then all potentially valid pointers have a value).

Whether or not such behavior is intended can be hard to judge in some cases, which is one of the reasons that it's best not to do this automatic conversion.