Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!mike
From: mike@whuxl.UUCP (BALDWIN)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Min/max and bool
Message-ID: <1126@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-May-86 17:41:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.1126
Posted: Tue May 27 17:41:11 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 29-May-86 02:07:52 EDT
References: <5498@alice.uUCp> <1462@mmintl.UUCP> <852@bentley.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 20

Re: new? min and max ops
>>>o Min and max operators.  These would get used all over the place.  These
>>>should be usable to the left of the assignment operator, as most but not all
>>>C operators are.

The PDP-11 C compiler had two operators /\ and \/ whose names in the compiler
had something to do with MAX and MIN, I believe.  Unfortunately, they weren't
really implemented -- they were parsed but that's as far as it got.

Re: builtin bool type
>I'm not sure why not.  Assuming all the implicit int/bool conversions stay,
>I think the only problems are (a) it isn't really necessary, and (b) it adds
>a new reserved word (breaking any programs that use "typedef int bool"!).

(a) is the biggie.  Why add bool when "typedef enum { FALSE, TRUE } bool;"
works fine?  (Relying on ANSI C's treatment of enums as real ints)
-- 
						Michael Baldwin
			(not the opinions of)	AT&T Bell Laboratories
						{at&t}!whuxl!mike