Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4802 comp.lang.c:22256
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false"
Message-ID: <14735@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 26 Sep 89 14:40:53 GMT
References: <13730@well.UUCP> <1989Sep22.073138.19684@lth.se> <1885@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <7701@bunker.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Organization: ^
Lines: 22
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

There is so much code that already thinks it has to - and can - define
what "boolean" is, that adding a reserved "boolean" type would probably
be greeted with more groans than cheers.  Nor does much of this existing
code make any room for 1-bit implementations, from what I've seen.

I think that at MOST, "boolean," "TRUE" and "FALSE" should have the same
status as "NULL," i.e., some (new) standard header like  should
define them if you bother to include it.  And the guidance would suggest
saying

	#define boolean int
	#define TRUE 1
	#define FALSE 0

although I have always smiled on clevernesses like

	#define TRUE (1==1)
	#define FALSE (1==0)

-- 
'The Nazis have no sense of humor, so why   -|  Tom Neff
should they want television?' -- Phil Dick  |-  tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET