DMD 0.148 release

[Georg Wrede]

Tom wrote:
> Georg Wrede says...
>> Ivan Senji wrote:
>>> Georg Wrede wrote:
>>>> Ivan Senji wrote:
>>>>> Georg Wrede wrote:
>>>>>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>>>>>> Georg Wrede wrote:

>>>>>> I think we've gotten it backwards here, so let's turn the table:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you give some example code and use cases where we absolutely 
>>>>>> need your kind of booleans?
>>>
>>> Could it be that I missunderstood you? By your kind of booleans did you 
>>> mean the true non-integer booleans? If so, that is what the example dow 
>>> there is for: showing why we need real bools.
>>>
>>> And if I did missunderstand something I apologize (it's late).
>>
>> No problem. The way this whole thread is going, half the time everybody 
>> is clueless. :-)


>> bool foo = 55 && 5000;
> 
> Oh my God!


> Really I can't see yet why you don't like the pure bool. We should see an
> example of why pure bools would bother you so much.

In this post alone, there's a half dozen references to "my kind of bool" 
or "your kind of bool", by various people.

Probably somebody should start making a table of their properties! :-)

And if they don't, we could always examine this thread later, and I bet 
we could find one or two pairs of folks vehemently arguing, and it'd 
turn out "their bools were the same", only they didn't notice.