DMD 0.148 release

[Ivan Senji]

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

This above looks cool.

> 
>>>>>>> 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.

Funny thread.

> 
> 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.

After all, what ever bizare variant of a bool gets implemented, it is 
still out D's bool :)