Bool {post,pre}{inc,dec}-operators

[Jeremy]

In article <du4sp7$1e50$2 at digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>
>Jeremy wrote:
>> In article <du2qrk$61u$2 at digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>>> Oskar Linde wrote:
>>>> bool a = 0;
>>>> --a;
>>>> assert(a == false || a == true); // FAILS(!) (a is set to 255)
>>>>
>>>> bool t = true;
>>>> bool b = t+t;
>>>> assert(b == true); //OK
>>>> bool c = 0;
>>>> c++;
>>>> c++;
>>>> assert(c == true || c == false); // FAILS
>>>>
>>>> But:
>>>>
>>>> bool d = 0;
>>>> d += 2;
>>>> assert(d == true || d == false); // OK
>>>>
>>>> /Oskar

>>> This makes me sick to my stomach. I thought D was a beautiful language, but now I dont know.
>> 
>> bools were *just* added... I'm sure Walter will fix these things -- don't go
>> degrading the entire language because a brand new feature in a beta release is
>> buggy. Keep up the good work... anyway, how often do you get to yell directly to
>> the language's creator to get it made just the way you want it? :-D
>> 
>> - Jeremy
>
>Here's the thing though: Even if I and others yell and scream and tear our hair out, Walter will implement it how he wants 
>anyways. And yes, I sill think D is the best language around. (D the Language, not D the Framework)

Hrm.. I'm rather a D newbie :-D but it seems to be just what I want (given some
time for things to become stable anyway). SO, I don't know how stubborn he is
(or not) -- but this bool thing seems pretty crazy to leave as-is.. I couldn't
imagine Walter not fixing this.

What's the difference between the language / framework..? Framework being the
phobos library?

Jeremy