> integers where 255 + 1 == 0 are defined in mathematics, anyone with math background will understand how they works.
while C++ has
int
where
x + 1
is undefined for some value (
std::numberic_limits<int>::max()
). Anyone with minimal familiarity with C++ will understand what that implies.
> 2s complement was created and widely used because it allows operations with it to behave like algebraic ones.
You are completely mistaken; operations on C++ integral types do not behave like their algebraic counterparts in mathematics.
> Isn't this implies that bools in C++ are not safe?
No it doesn't. It implies that bools in C++ can be used in an unsafe manner. An explicit conversion via a compiletime cast can be used in an even more unsafe manner.
int
s,
double
s, userdefined types, inheritance .... can all be used in an unsafe manner.
> And on top of that it is slower than native types (creating pointer to nonstatic member function is not fastest operation)
It actually isn't any slower. To realize that, you need to understand fast how optimizers work, how
&Java_boolean::not_integral
is evaluated, if at all going it is going to be evaluated, and so on. That is how it is, and I'm just going to state it. I don't want to spend more time explaining all that.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

// compiled on gcc 4.8 i686 with fomitframepointer O3
struct Java_boolean
{
explicit constexpr Java_boolean( bool b = false ) : value(b) {}
using Java_bool_t = void (Java_boolean::*)() const ;
operator Java_bool_t() const { return value ? &Java_boolean::not_integral : nullptr ; }
private:
bool value ;
void not_integral() const {}
};
int foo( Java_boolean jb )
{
if(jb) return 100 ;
else return 200 ;
/*//////////////////////
__Z3foo12Java_boolean:
LFB5:
.cfi_startproc
cmpb $1, 4(%esp)
sbbl %eax, %eax
andl $100, %eax
addl $100, %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
/////////////////////////*/
}
int bar( bool b )
{
if(b) return 100 ;
else return 200 ;
/*//////////////////////
__Z3barb:
LFB6:
.cfi_startproc
cmpb $1, 4(%esp)
sbbl %eax, %eax
andl $100, %eax
addl $100, %eax
ret
.cfi_endproc
/////////////////////////*/
}
 
I've no interest in continuing with this discussion any further; I'm out of this thread.