DIP 1015--Deprecation of Implicit Conversion of Int. & Char. Literals to bool--Formal Assement

[Joakim]

On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 17:25:15 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
> On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 16:39:47 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> Walter and Andrei take the position that this is incorrect the 
>> wrong way to view a bool.
>
> Unfortunately you did not include their justification for this 
> position (if any). To me it would be interesting to know about 
> the reasoning that is behind this position.

Maybe you didn't read the link to their reasoning in the DIP, but 
it's quite simple: they view a bool as an integral type with two 
possible values, a `bit` if you like. As such, they prefer to fit 
it into the existing scheme for integral types rather than 
special-casing booleans as Mike proposed.