DMD 0.148 release

[Tom]

In article <dtsgbj$1h6u$3 at digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
>
>Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> Walter is still living in the C/C++ past with this concept, which is  
>>> strange seeing he has implemented so many progressive concepts in D.  
>>> Boolean as an integer is just retro.
>> 
>> So am I.
>> 
>> Booleans have to be int. A boolean may have any "numeric" value, but if 
>>  implicitly cast to a numeric type, it should return 1 or 0.
>> 
>> D IS A PRACTICAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
>> 
>> Forcing booleans to be 1/0 all the way is just academic, purist, 
>> impractical bigotry. About as smart as having the bit type.
>> 
>> (Besides, if booleans, as some say here, are _only_ abstract concepts, 
>> then we might as well decide to have 0 mean true and 1 mean false. Heh, 
>> there's only one truth but millions of lies! But we live in a world with 
>> other people. And computers.)
>> 
>> Now, specifying 0 to mean false and everything else to mean not-false, 
>> we go along with the hardware, the computer industry, half a century of 
>> programming PRACTICE, and make life less difficult for anybody with a 
>> professional programming background before moving to D.
>> 
>> Anybody who wants a tight-ass boolean, can define one for themselves.
>> 
>> ////
>> 
>> Now off to the Olympic Final in ice hockey: Finland - Sweden!!!
>
>How would having a builtin, "purist" boolean type preclude using integers as a boolean type, in all the old ways you describe? 
>Just as a curiosity, how have you been burned in the past by "purist" thinking like this to make you so passionately against it?

I'd like to hear the answer :) .
Have to stay at the purists side on this one. I like bool to be bool cause I'm
that kind of guy that can't tolerate inconsistence (however I do tolerate it
cause don't have much of a choice right now) and I'm putting all my hope in D.
However both (the purist and the pragmatic) ways could coexist in the same
language I guess.

Tom;