Bools reloaded

[Tom]

In article <du9cnl$2h9j$3 at digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
>
>Don Clugston wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Sorry, that's still not clear.
>> Bruno is right, terms like "pure bools" or "purist bools" are vague, you 
>> can't expect everyone to know what you mean.

[snip]

>Derek made a post some time ago with one such definition 
>(news://news.digitalmars.com:119/14shfnb64x5o2.17cec6fac7wnu.dlg@40tude.net).

And that is exactly what I meant when I said that you should read the latest
posts on the stuff :)


Tom;