Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4841 comp.lang.c:22325 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!cit-vax!wen-king From: wen-king@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (King Su) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false" Message-ID: <12070@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: 27 Sep 89 12:54:15 GMT References: <13730@well.UUCP> <9464@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <895@cirrusl.UUCP> <1044@m3.mfci.UUCP> <393@cpsolv.UUCP> Reply-To: wen-king@cit-vax.UUCP (Wen-King Su) Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 17 In article <393@cpsolv.UUCP> rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz) writes: >The biggest advantage of a built-in boolean type would be that casts TO itif sizeof(source) is bigger than sizeof(bool). Also, (bool)X & (bool)Y would equivalent to && for type bool except that both operands would be evaluated. Why not just do: #define bool(a) (!!(a)) Then just use bool(X) whenever you wanted to use (bool)X. -- /*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\ | Wen-King Su wen-king@vlsi.caltech.edu Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers | \*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/