A signed 1-bit type?

[Quirin Schroll]

On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 06:17:16 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> On 9/19/2023 5:37 AM, Quirin Schroll wrote:
>> I cannot answer you why you’d want a signed 1-bit type, though.
>
> Basic doing that is an aberration.
>
>> D’s booleans, however, are unsigned integer types.
>
> Yup. Changing that would break an unknown amount of code.

I’m not saying it should be changed, but maybe a signed 1-bit 
type could be added, as the signed equivalent of our unsigned 
1-bit type.

No, not really; but I can’t but laugh at the idea of a signed 
1-bit type and that Basic actually went with it. And I wanted to 
share this with all of you.