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 likeshould 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