🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DCBsLu.n1A@research.att.com> ark@research.att.com (Andrew
Koenig) writes:

|> In article <1995Jul26.030356.21528@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:

|> > No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there is no justification
|> > for adding to the language a type specific to boolean values, when such
|> > values can already be manipulated in any of several types.  (One of which
|> > is indeed int.)  Dennis Ritchie got it right.

|> The justification is:

|> 	1. Unless bool is a separate type, there's no way to overload on it.

|> 	2. It can't be a user-defined type because there's no way
|> 	   for users to define the type of expressions like 3<4.

|> Because C doesn't have overloading, this is much less of an issue for
|> C than it is for C++.

Actually, if I remember your proposal correctly, the main
justification given for the bool type was existing practice: every
major library has one.  And most of the examples were in fact C, not
C++.  (A quick grep over the X11 include files, for example reveals
typedefs/#defines for Boolean, boolean, Bool and BOOL.)

Obviously, some programmers *have* felt the need for such a type.
-- 
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung