Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4780 comp.lang.c:22225
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!attctc!wjf
From: wjf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Jesse Furqueron)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false"
Summary: "TRUE" values of TRUE & FALSE
Keywords: true false C C++
Message-ID: <9464@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 24 Sep 89 22:21:20 GMT
References: <13730@well.UUCP>
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: comp
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 41

In article <13730@well.UUCP>, nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) writes:
> 
>      I would like to suggest that the time has come to standardize the
> Boolean values in C.  Most programs have definitions of these, but they
> differ and clash.  As the typing rules become ever tighter, and the number
	
			xyzzy!! and text disappears...

> 
>      I would suggest that the standardized definition be
>      If it's too late to fix this in C, it should be fixed in C++, where
> typing is taken more seriously.
> 
> 					John Nagle


I would suggest rather than FALSE = 0 and TRUE = 1, that the "real" definition
of TRUE is not FALSE (TRUE = not 0), i.e. TRUE = !0.  Therefore the following

#define FALSE	0
#define TRUE	!0 

or for c++ folks

const boolean (FALSE=0, TRUE=!0);

I believe (if this tired and aged memory serves me correctly) that somewhere
K&R refers to this being the evalutations used in if and while statements.


Jesse Furqueron
VISystems
11910 Greeneville Suite 300
LB 29
Dallas, Tx. 75243
(214) 907-8080

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, the opinions expressed by myself are not necessarily those of my
employer... maybe one of these days they'll learn to listen!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------