Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4824 comp.lang.c:22286 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: <12067@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: 27 Sep 89 05:11:55 GMT References: <13730@well.UUCP> <1989Sep22.073138.19684@lth.se> <1885@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <7701@bunker.UUCP> Reply-To: wen-king@cit-vax.UUCP (Wen-King Su) Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 24 In article <7701@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:is supported largely by ridicule and sarcasm. You shouldn't go around exposing your weakness like that; you can be manipulated into taking any side. :-) >>Why do we need to introduce a new data type to do the job of a data type <>we already have, but in a more complex way? > equally to "short" and "long" (perhaps even "char"). Why do you think I favor the addition of "boolean" to "C" -- it's only logical. It doesn't have to be 32 bits. Besides, using 32 bits is perfectly OK if it makes the program faster and if speed is what you are after. If space is more important, you can do with 1 bit if you use bit field. We can do just fine with what we got, so the question is why is boolean needed and why is it, as you say, logical (perhaps you forgot a smiley). -- /*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\ | Wen-King Su wen-king@vlsi.caltech.edu Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers | \*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/