DMD 0.148 release

[Kyle Furlong]

Oskar Linde wrote:
> Tom skrev:
>> In article <du002m$2pnp$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Ivan Senji says...
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> "Ivan Senji" <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ at _THIS__gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> The problem in all these bool wars so far is I never saw an argument 
>>> that would be against true booleans (while(BooleanExpression) and all 
>>> that...).
>>
>> Yes, PLEASE, WHY?? Just ONE argument against pure bools, only one and 
>> I shut my
>> mouth forever!
>>
>> Tom;
> 
> Does pure booleans necessarily mean that other types could not be 
> implicitly convertible to bool? I would love "pure" booleans (not a 
> numeric type, not allowed in arithmetic operations), but I would hate to 
> have to write:
> 
> if (a !is null || b !is null)
> 
> instead of:
> 
> if (a || b)
> 

I would say that the second construct is much less reliable, maintainable, and safe than the first. Therefore, the type system 
should disallow the second with a pure boolean type.

> What is wrong with the second case? (apart from being more readable).
> 
> With such "pure" booleans, you could still write:
> 
> while(1)
> 
> With the classic definition of !0 !null implies true...
> 
> /Oskar