Time to standardize "true" and "false"

[John Nagle]

Correction: the definition should have read:
>	enum boolean (false=0, true=1);
     
       Doug Gwin at BRL points out that namespace clashes are a more
general problem in C.  But this isn't a namespace-control problem.
It's not that we want every package to have its own definition of
"boolean", all kept straight in some way and with conversion functions
between package A's "boolean" and package B's "boolean" somehow provided.

       "boolean" really ought to be part of the language, and the logical
operators should return results of type "boolean", but it's too late in
the history of C/C++ for that.  Nevertheless, we should at least have
a consistent definition within the current language structure.

					John Nagle