DMD 0.148 release

[Wang Zhen]

Tom wrote:
> In article <dtsgbj$1h6u$3 at digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
> 
>>Georg Wrede wrote:
>>
>>>Derek Parnell wrote:
>>>
>>>>Walter is still living in the C/C++ past with this concept, which is  
>>>>strange seeing he has implemented so many progressive concepts in D.  
>>>>Boolean as an integer is just retro.
>>>
>>>So am I.
>>>
>>>Booleans have to be int. A boolean may have any "numeric" value, but if 
>>> implicitly cast to a numeric type, it should return 1 or 0.
>>>
>>>D IS A PRACTICAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
>>>
>>>Forcing booleans to be 1/0 all the way is just academic, purist, 
>>>impractical bigotry. About as smart as having the bit type.
>>>
>>>(Besides, if booleans, as some say here, are _only_ abstract concepts, 
>>>then we might as well decide to have 0 mean true and 1 mean false. Heh, 
>>>there's only one truth but millions of lies! But we live in a world with 
>>>other people. And computers.)
>>>
>>>Now, specifying 0 to mean false and everything else to mean not-false, 
>>>we go along with the hardware, the computer industry, half a century of 
>>>programming PRACTICE, and make life less difficult for anybody with a 
>>>professional programming background before moving to D.
>>>
>>>Anybody who wants a tight-ass boolean, can define one for themselves.
>>>
>>>////
>>>
>>>Now off to the Olympic Final in ice hockey: Finland - Sweden!!!
>>
>>How would having a builtin, "purist" boolean type preclude using integers as a boolean type, in all the old ways you describe? 
>>Just as a curiosity, how have you been burned in the past by "purist" thinking like this to make you so passionately against it?
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear the answer :) .
> Have to stay at the purists side on this one. I like bool to be bool cause I'm
> that kind of guy that can't tolerate inconsistence (however I do tolerate it
> cause don't have much of a choice right now) and I'm putting all my hope in D.
> However both (the purist and the pragmatic) ways could coexist in the same
> language I guess.
> 
> Tom;


I'm curious to know how you can tolerate the much impure int and real 
types while highly demanding a pure boolean. An integer bool is at least 
a superset of true booleans. Does that really bother people more?