Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4753 comp.lang.c:22142
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!usc!basil.usc.edu!blarson
From: blarson@basil.usc.edu (bob larson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false"
Keywords: true false C C++
Message-ID: <20024@usc.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 89 19:14:50 GMT
References: <13730@well.UUCP>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Reply-To: blarson@basil.usc.edu (bob larson)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Distribution: comp
Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles
Lines: 19

In article <13730@well.UUCP> nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) writes:
>
>     I would like to suggest that the time has come to standardize the
>Boolean values in C.
[...]
>     I would suggest that the standardized definition be
>	const boolean (false=0, true=1);

Why don't we just change the languae so it has this stuff built in?
Perhaps we can find a way that dosn't add more keywords to the
language... the little-known keyword "int" should be able to do
double-duty as boolean, and the keywords 0 and 1 should work just fine
as false and true.  Let's see what other changes are needed to the
languge... none.  Gee, it seems that maybe this was one of the uses
theese keywords were designed for. :-)

-- 
Bob Larson	Arpa:	blarson@basil.usc.edu
Uucp: usc!basil!blarson