Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!cmcl2!yale!cs.yale.edu!news
From: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Time to standardize "true" and "false"
Message-ID: <1021@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 89 20:44:21 GMT
References: <13730@well.UUCP> <1989Sep22.073138.19684@lth.se> <1885@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <7701@bunker.UUCP> <12067@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <822@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Reply-To: zador-anthony@CS.YALE.EDU (anthony zador)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158
Lines: 13

>vojon ol mi komence imagis.  ^Cu        pletely different from what I first
>ne unu el la precipaj avanta^goj        imagined.  Wouldn't one of the main
>de C-tipo `boolean' estus, ke ^gi       advantages of a `boolean' type in C
>ebligus pli striktan kontrolon de       be the possibility for stricter type
>tipoj (pli ol la ^sparo de kelkaj       checking (rather than saving a few
>bitoj)?  Kompreneble, tiuj belaj        bits)?  Of course, such beloved con-
>konstrua^joj "x<y<z<u" tiam ne          structs as "x<y<z<u" would no longer
>estus eblaj, se ne permesi ankaw        be possible, unless comparison of
>komparon de bule-oj.                    `boolean's would be permitted.
From: zador-anthony@CS.YALE.EDU (anthony zador)
Path: zador-anthony@CS.YALE.EDU

OK, i'll bite. Esperanto?