Shouldn't bool be initialized to 0xFF ?

[Oskar Linde]

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> I've been following those "why's char init'ed to -1?" / "why's float 
> init'ed to NaN?" thread, and I'd have to agree with Walter: a crazy 
> initialization sure makes it obvious where the problem lies.
> 
> So: why isn't "bool" initialized to 0xFF too? In dmd v0.164, bool.init 
> is 0, which is a valid value for bool. For byte/int/long I get it, since 
> there is no invalid value for byte/int/long. But for bool there is, so 
> the same reasoning as char/float applies.
> 
> We could even name 0xFF "Not A Bool" ;)

There is a difference here. For char, 0xff is a valid value. That is, 
the spec says a char may hold the value 0xff - possibly to represent an 
illegal character. Likewise for NaN. NaN is a well defined value for 
floating point types. It is within the types value range.

A bool may never hold any other value than 0 or 1. This is enforced by 
the compiler. No other value than 0 or 1 is within the bool value range. 
The bool is the only type I know of where the compiler forces a value 
range below the possible physical storage range.

/Oskar