opEquals needs to return bool

[Robert Fraser]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 16/05/2008, BCS <ao at pathlink.com> wrote:
>>>> Bools are bytes, while ints are 4 bytes, so sometimes ints are
>>>> managed faster.
>>>>
>>> So why not just make bool a 4-byte value?  Using an integer to
>>> represent a boolean operation is just silly.
>>  Or pad them to 4 bytes where you can (local variable).
> 
> Honestly, I think I would be happy with a four-byte bool, in almost
> all circumstances.
> 
> For those rare cases where space is an issue, there could be a second
> type, bool8, implicitly castable to and from bool, but you wouldn't
> use that by default; you'd only use it in structs where you needed to
> pack stuff tight.

Instead of having a separate type, why not just use a (u)byte in those 
cases? That's gotta be rarer than the cases where you'd want to use an 
int for a bool, so while it's the same problem, the incidence of the 
problem is reduced while not adding yet another data type that may be 
unclear for new users