🚀 go-pugleaf

In article LEr@netcom.com, scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter) writes:
>Paul Long (plong@perf.com) says:
>> mike@if.com (Mr.H) wrote:
>> >What about this:  call the boolean type something other than
>> >'bool' or 'boolean'.
>
>> Some language, possibly PL/I, called these things "logicals," as in
>
>>    logical p;
>
>> How about "logical?"
>
>What you're talking about is a binary variable: a variable that can take one
>of two values.  That is the best name for the type: `binary'....

Well this is all very interesting, but a document is already going
through an international ballot, and the name of the type is 'bool'.
With many substantive technical issues remaining to be solved, and
with the name 'bool' already advertised (and implemented in some of
the more forward-looking compilers), the probability of a change at
this stage is (when rounded to the nearest ten-thousandth): 0.0000.

This might have been an interesting debate before the concrete was
poured, but not now!


---
Marc Shepherd
Salomon Brothers Inc
shepherd@schubert.sbi.com	<<These are my opinions, not my employer's.>>
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]