Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: TRUE and FALSE Message-ID: <26DC7254.24E7@tct.uucp> Date: 30 Aug 90 01:56:34 GMT References: <2316@cirrusl.UUCP> <11369@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <940@gistdev.gist.com> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 13 According to flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett): >[...] it is possible that at some point in the future you might have to >port to CBD C (Charlie's Brain-Dead C) where TRUE is -1 [...] It makes no sense to dispute the portability of the definitions "#define TRUE 1" and "#define FALSE 0". If you can't count on "(1==1)==1" and "(1==0)==0" then you're not using C. The readability and maintainability of code using TRUE and FALSE, however, are still issues. Personally, I like them; but then, I detest the One True Brace Style, so what do I know? :-) -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT ,