🚀 go-pugleaf

In <MATT.95Aug20111450@Austern>, herbs@interlog.com (Herb Sutter) writes:
> Since we're gaining none of the benefits of the literals, why bother
>introducing them (with yet another meaning)?  Why not just use 1 and 0 with no
>renaming at all?

This is where, I think, we are fundamentally disagreeing.  There is a
benefit, and (to me) a major one.  That is readability.  I consider
using '1' and '0' for logical conditions to be "bad form", and
considering the number of people that define TRUE/FALSE in some variant
for the preprocessor I am not alone in that feeling.

As long it is a literal which can be converted to an integral value, I
just don't see the problem in allowing the preprocessor to recognize
the literal.  If you want to use '1' and '0' there is nothing stopping
you.  But I don't want to do that.  And the inability of the
preprocessor to recognize the 'true' / 'false' literals DOES stop me
from writing (what I consider to be) readable code.

Michael Lee Finney
---
[ 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. ]