DMD 0.148 release

[Tom]

In article <dttblu$2hr6$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Tom says...
>
>In article <dtsj9u$1l2s$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Wang Zhen says...
>>
>>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?
>
>I think people learns to tolerate things. It's just a matter of time. And now
>that you mention it, it doesn't bother me *that* much. Now it is more like a
>preference to me.

Sorry didn't understand before (part because of english not being my "home
language" and part because of being distracted). Derek answered well to that. 
Now here is my thinking: if you don't like abstraction high level languages
offer, please go back to C or even to assembly so you never forget you're
dealing with transistors :P (just a joke)

Tom;