On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 15:15:17 UTC, M.M. wrote:
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 15:03:08 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 09:45:14 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The TL;DR is that the DIP is trying to change behavior that
is working as intended.
I thought the whole point of a DIP is to change behavior that
is working as intended. Otherwise, we have a bug fix rather
than a language change.
+1
Let's not get hung up on my apparently poor choice of words for
an informal summary in a newsgroup post. The more formal summary
I appended to the DIP is closer to what they actually said.
The DIP starts from the assumption that bool should be a distinct
type from integrals, a point of view that is not uncommon. Walter
and Andrei take the position that this is incorrect the wrong way
to view a bool.
