DMD 0.148 release

[Regan Heath]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:48:11 +1100, Derek Parnell <derek at psych.ward> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:56:10 +1100, Regan Heath <regan at netwin.co.nz>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:46:10 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Kuehne  
>> <thomas-dloop at kuehne.cn> wrote:
>>> Charles schrieb am 2006-02-26:
>>>>
>>>> > Can't we simply treat zero as false and non-zero as true as we C
>>>> > programmers always do?
>>>>
>>>> I agree, I still don't get what the 'true bool' fuss is about .
>>>
>>> if(b==1) { ... }
>>>
>>> instead of
>>>
>>> if(b!=0) { ... }
>>>
>>> can be found in quite a lot of C code ...
>>
>> So?
>>
>> Assuming:
>>
>>   - 'b' is a bool
>>   - a bool can only have 2 values, 'true' and 'false'
>>   - when you convert/promote a bool to an int you get: 'true'->'1',  
>> 'false'->'0'
>>   - when you convert/promote an int to bool you get: '0'->false,  
>> '!0'->'true'
>>
>> Then:
>>
>> if(b==1) { ... }
>>
>> results in 'b' being converted to int, giving it the value 1, and the  
>> comparrison working correctly.
>>
>> Right?
>
> If it implemented that way, yes. However the problem with
>
>    if(b == 1)
>
> is that the reader (future maintainer) might be mislead into thinking  
> that 'b' is an integer and may try to use it as such by mistake. It is  
> better to inform the reader about the true nature of 'b' by writing
>
>    if (b == true)
>
> in or to remove such ambiguity.

Sure, but the example was old C code, presumably copied into a D source  
file and used. Or perhaps a C programmer not used to having bool using '1'  
for true. I was just pointing out that it was likely to work, not that it  
was as clear as it could be.

Regan