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