Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!DHowell.ES@Xerox.ARPA
From: DHowell.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: No Such Thing
Message-ID: <1006@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 15:57:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1006
Posted: Mon Aug 26 15:57:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 21:15:27 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 27

> > ... when it comes to defining one's own
> > language extensions, this one seems like a winner:
> > 
> > 	typedef int	bool;
> > 	#define	false	0
> > 	#define	true	1
> > 

> Seems like a loser to me. Just takes up space. I actually have to READ
it.

Not really.  You could usually safely assume that if someone is defining
true and false, he/she is defining it as above.  (if some joker decides
to define false as 29 and true as 53, he should be forced for eternity
to covert 10,000-line APL programs to Fortran! :-) )  I think it is much
easier to read things such as:

   done _ true;

than:

   done _ 1;
   
Of course, explanatory comments in any case improves readability even
more.

Dan