Bools reloaded

[Bruno Medeiros]

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Tom" <Tom_member at pathlink.com> wrote in message 
> news:du049t$2uv2$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> Yes, PLEASE, WHY?? Just ONE argument against pure bools, only one and I 
>> shut my
>> mouth forever!
> 
> One should be very careful about stepping away from C's implicit promotion 
> rules for a language that aims to be a successor to C. C absolutely *buried* 
> Pascal.
> 

Uuh, I'm not sure what Tom meant by "pure bools", nor I'm sure what you 
meant by "C's implicit promotion rules" (as C doesn't even have a bool). 
But ok, nevermind, let's pause for a moment, and get our facts straight.

What exactly is it in bools that you Walter, want and not want?
I already know that the ability to write 'while(1)' as the same as 
'while(true)' is one of them, but, anything more?
Is the behaviour of having an "implicit promotion" something you want too?
If so, promotion from where, from int to bool, or from bool to int?
Do you want or not want bool numeric operations to be an error (like 
boolA / boolB*2) ?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to 
be... unnatural."