Get rid of bit and bit[] ?

[Walter Bright]

"Derek Parnell" <derek at psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:op.s46t2hmc6b8z09 at ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:39:18 +1100, Walter Bright 
> <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Anders F Björklund" <afb at algonet.se> wrote in message
>> news:dt75m2$243m$2 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> I was thinking of making bool a keyword and basic type along the lines 
>>>> of
>>>> bool in C++.
>>> I thought not having a boolean type was part of D's "personality".
>>
>> Boolean was redundant to the bit type.
>
> Wrong! That statement implies that the entire requirements of a correct 
> 'boolean' type is met by the behaviour of the 'bit' type. And that is 
> demonstrably incorrect.

It did nearly every item on your list. Adding another basic type that 
overlapped 98% with another basic type is just not a good idea. But absent 
that other type, then it does become a good idea.