DMD 0.148 release

[Derek Parnell]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:49:14 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> "Ivan Senji" <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ at _THIS__gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:dtuatr$l0k$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Why? This is a practice I got into with C/C++, and I did it because 1 
>>> cannot be redefined by the preprocessor into something goofy. I.e., I 
>>> *knew* what it was without having to go spelunking through header files.
>> The reason should be obvious. While(condition). Condition should be 
>> boolean (true or false). 1 is neither. It is an integer. Using 1 (or any 
>> other int) in a conditions place just isn't type safe.
> 
> 1 isn't type safe??
> 
>> What if you (as a compiler writer) decide (how ever unlikely) that true 
>> should for some good reasons be implemented as being 0, or bool should be 
>> implemented as float, or something else).
> 
> That would break just about every C and C++ program in existence. Not going 
> to happen. The reason I used 1 was because *it could never break* and 
> because it has the property of being "inspectible." Inspectible means I can 
> look at it and know what it does without having to refer to other things.
> 
>> PS No need to answer because I know this is one topic where we can't 
>> convince you. :)
> 
> LOL, I agree with you there.

Agreed that the 'while(1)' idiom is not going anywhere, but Walter, which
would *you* write using D nowadays? 

  while(1) ...

or

  while(true) ...

And why would you choose one form over the other?

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
28/02/2006 9:41:18 AM