DMD 0.148 release

[Derek Parnell]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:05:13 +1100, Georg Wrede <georg at nospam.org> wrote:


> Well, then we could skip the logical operators, right? No more && or ||.  
> Since all booleans would be strictly 0 or 1, they'd become obsolete.

Firstly, I'm not saying that booleans are 0 or 1 - they are not even  
numbers.

Secondly, '&&' and '||' are logic operations and don't apply to numbers,  
they apply to booleans.

    if ((a < b) && (c >= b)) ...

has meaning regardless of how booleans are implemented.

> And if booleans have to only be 0 or 1, then a whole lot of unnecessary  
> conversions would be happening all over the place. Forget D speed.

I repeat ... why are you saying the 0/1 is the only implementation being  
suggested? I'm not holding that position. Booleans can be implemented  
efficiently, and the compiler can implement boolean semantics, these are  
not mutually exclusive.

> Also, D is supposed to be a _systems_language_ for chrissake! Any kernel  
> writing would then have to forgo booleans totally.

Why? Your statement does not make any sense to me.

> I'm all for features in D that enhance productivity, but deliberately  
> dumbing down the language is getting a bit too far.

You mean that by making D smarter about the use of booleans would actually  
make it dumber?

> We've all had our fights with C, C++, and other related languages. But  
> honestly, how many of us can confess to having problems with logical  
> values?

Me.

> And if someone here has such problems, I suggest switching to VB.

I am also a VB coder and I'm not a language bigot.

> "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."

D is broken with respect to booleans. A little less broken than before,  
but still broken.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia