Time to standardize "true" and "false"

[Reinhard Foessmeier]

In article <12067 at cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wen-king at cit-vax.UUCP (Wen-King Su) writes:
>...
>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).
>-- 

^Ci tiu diskuto iris tute alian         This discussion has taken a road com-
vojon ol mi komence imagis.  ^Cu        pletely different from what I first
ne unu el la precipaj avanta^goj        imagined.  Wouldn't one of the main
de C-tipo `boolean' estus, ke ^gi       advantages of a `boolean' type in C
ebligus pli striktan kontrolon de       be the possibility for stricter type
tipoj (pli ol la ^sparo de kelkaj       checking (rather than saving a few
bitoj)?  Kompreneble, tiuj belaj        bits)?  Of course, such beloved con-
konstrua^joj "x<y<z<u" tiam ne          structs as "x<y<z<u" would no longer
estus eblaj, se ne permesi ankaw        be possible, unless comparison of
komparon de bule-oj.                    `boolean's would be permitted.

>/*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
>| Wen-King Su  wen-king at vlsi.caltech.edu  Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers |
>\*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
__________
Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen | UNOX is a trademark of
foessmeier at infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de |     "Union Deutsche 
   [ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ]             | Lebensmittelwerke GmbH"