Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4784 comp.lang.c:22235 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!ian From: ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false" Message-ID: <1885@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> Date: 23 Sep 89 17:58:43 GMT References: <13730@well.UUCP> <1989Sep22.073138.19684@lth.se> Organization: Computer Science CSMVAX, Liverpool University Lines: 32 In article <1989Sep22.073138.19684@lth.se>, newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server) writes: > I completely agree that a boolean data type is needed in C++. I > think the definition should define the following properties: > > 1. The data type is called "boolean". > That's just what _you_ want to call it! Why not call it `bool' or `logical' or even `int'? > 2. The allowed values are "false" and "true". > Why not call them `f' and `t' or `F' and `T' or even `0' and `1'? > 3. int(false) = 0 and int(true) = 1 > Well, int (0) = 0 and int (1) = 1. > 4. boolean(0) = false, other values are true > Wouldn't it be great for conditionals in C to be false if they are testing integer 0 and to be true if they are testing any other integer? That way we could use integers instead of a new boolean type. Oh, looks like they already do that! 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? Ian Finch Janet: ian@uk.ac.liv.cs.mva --------- Internet: ian%mva.cs.liv.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!ian@uk.ac.liv.cs.mva =============================================================================== What's a word processor? Well, you know what a food processor does to food ...