Time to standardize "true" and "false"

[King Su]

In article <7701 at bunker.UUCP> garys at bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
<In any argument, I find I will tend to take the side opposite that which
>is supported largely by ridicule and sarcasm.

You shouldn't go around exposing your weakness like that; you can be
manipulated into taking any side.  :-)

>>Why do we need to introduce a new data type to do the job of a data type
<>we already have, but in a more complex way?
>
<It seems to me that your arguments (such as they are) would apply
>equally to "short" and "long" (perhaps even "char").  Why do you think
<I should use 32 bits ("int" in some environments) when 1 would do?
>I favor the addition of "boolean" to "C" -- it's only logical.

It doesn't have to be 32 bits.  Besides, using 32 bits is perfectly OK
if it makes the program faster and if speed is what you are after.  If
space is more important, you can do with 1 bit if you use bit field.
We can do just fine with what we got, so the question is why is boolean
needed and why is it, as you say, logical (perhaps you forgot a smiley).
-- 
/*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
| Wen-King Su  wen-king at vlsi.caltech.edu  Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers |
\*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/