🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9521600.9005@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
Fergus Henderson <fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:

> But that's the whole point: every man and his dog uses a different
> type to store boolean values.  This causes a real software engineering
> problem, especially when you are using several different libraries,
> all of which define `bool' (incompatibly).  It makes sense to standardize
> on just *one* boolean type.

There is a big difference between standardizing on one boolean type and
adding it to the language as a built-in. Unfortunately, providing a
boolean type at the library level does not help with the problem that
some people would like conditional operators to return boolean instead
of 0/1. This cannot be patched into the language without breaking lots
of old code.

I maintain, as far as C is concerned, that adding a built-in boolean
type will gratuitiously complicate the language to little gain and
should therefore be avoided. For C++, things may be different, but then
I don't use C++. There is no need to turn C into C++ by stealth.

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau ......................... lingnau@tm.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de
Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true
virtue.                                               --- Confucius, *Analects*