Bools reloaded

[Tom]

In article <du71jc$1e9h$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
>
>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) ?

You should read the latest posts about this stuff (the most with subject "Re:
DMD 0.148 release"). It's all said there. By "pure bools" I mean the *purist
kind* of boolean type. A boolean type that abstracts us from the implementation.

Tom;