Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4800 comp.lang.c:22254 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!oliveb!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false" Message-ID: <7701@bunker.UUCP> Date: 26 Sep 89 12:48:11 GMT References: <13730@well.UUCP> <1989Sep22.073138.19684@lth.se> <1885@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> Reply-To: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, an Olivetti Company, Shelton, Ct Lines: 19 In article <1885@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: >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! In any argument, I find I will tend to take the side opposite that which is supported largely by ridicule and sarcasm. >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? It seems to me that your arguments (such as they are) would apply equally to "short" and "long" (perhaps even "char"). Why do you think I should use 32 bits ("int" in some environments) when 1 would do? I favor the addition of "boolean" to "C" -- it's only logical. Gary Samuelson