🚀 go-pugleaf

|> Solution 1 was status quo, and was judged by a great many people to be
|> inadequate. Hence we adoped solution 2. (For most practical purposes,
|> putting a boolean type in the standard library instead would be equivalent.
|> It doesn't have any advantages over using keywords that I can see.)

Having worked in situations where there were conflicting typedefs in different
third party libraries I can sympathise with the original poster (Mike). I have
come to realize, however, that adding a boolean type to C++ will help since in
the case of conflict one vendor's headers will cease to compile under the new
C++.  As a customer I may then press a vendor to rectify the situation.  As
things are now I have absolutely no recourse in the above-described situation
(other than code hackery).

-- 
John Hickin      Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Quebec
(514) 765-7924   hickin@bnr.ca


[ 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. ]