I came across an is_equals() function in a c API at work that returned 1 for non-equal sql tables (false) and 0 for equal ones (true). I only realized it after running test cases on my code, one for the positive example and one for the negative and they both failed which at first made little sense. The code in the API does not have a bug as the output was recorded correctly in its documentation.
My questions - are there upside down worlds / parallel universes / coding languages where this logical NOTing is normal? Isn't 1 usually true? Is the coder of the API making an error?
Answer
It is common for comparison functions to return 0 on "equals", so that they can also return a negative number for "less than" and a positive number for "greater than". strcmp() and memcmp() work like this.
It is, however, idiomatic for zero to be false and nonzero to be true, because this is how the C flow control and logical boolean operators work. So it might be that the return values chosen for this function are fine, but it is the function's name that is in error (it should really just be called compare() or similar).