object.opEquals return type

[Edward Diener]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 24/02/2008, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar at igesund.net> wrote:
>> Walter belive that an int is more efficient.
> 
> The way I see it, the problem is that bool has a defined width. It
> shouldn't have, because bool is special.
> 
> One possible solution would be to have explicit types bool8 and
> bool32, with "bool" meaning "either bool8 or bool32, at the compiler's
> discretion".
> 
> The compiler would only need very simple rules to choose which to use
> (e.g. if function parameter or function return or local variable, use
> bool32, else use bool8), and allow either to implicitly and losslessly
> cast to the other.
> 
> I think that would work. It would allow the programmer's intent to be
> specified in the code, but preserve efficiency at all levels.

Having more than one bool type complicates the situation for no good 
reason. A bool is conceptually a 'true' or 'false' value, so it hardly 
needs two types to handle that simple idea. I know you are saying that 
having two types would enable the compiler to choose the most efficient, 
but a compiler should be able to do this internally anyway without 
creating the complication.

If the reason given by Walter for having OpEquals retur an 'int' instead 
of a 'bool' is efficiency, than a 'bool' should internally be an 'int', 
else that same reason can be given for any operation potentially 
involving only a true or false value. Otherwise a 'bool' should 
internally remain a 'byte' and efficiency should be much less of a 
consideration than correct conceptual design.

Hopefully Walter will realize his delusion and correct his mistake.