DMD 0.148 release

[Tom]

In article <dtsj9u$1l2s$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Wang Zhen says...
>
>Tom wrote:
>> 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;
>
>
>I'm curious to know how you can tolerate the much impure int and real 
>types while highly demanding a pure boolean. An integer bool is at least 
>a superset of true booleans. Does that really bother people more?

I think people learns to tolerate things. It's just a matter of time. And now
that you mention it, it doesn't bother me *that* much. Now it is more like a
preference to me.

Tom;