On 5/11/19 10:27 PM, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Saturday, 11 May 2019 at 20:35:40 UTC, Exil wrote:
Regarding the discussion of how bool is handled...
It's a one bit integer so it should behave like a one bit integer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpTAtiboIDs#t=2h17m50s
I think Walter is conflating how bool is stored in memory with its
semantics.
I find this tends to be an unfortunately *very easy* trap to fall into
for programmers highly-experienced in low-level work: the conflation of
abstraction vs implementation. This conflation is something they're more
accustomed to, more comfortable with, and more tolerant of, than other
programmers.
The real key here is this:
Do we have 'bool' because a 1-bit integer is useful, or do we have
'bool' because a "true vs false" abstraction is useful?
The answer to that dictates the correct semantics.
I'm currently considering using D's rich modeling features
to create a new boolean type that behaves more like a boolean and less
like a bit. But it's unfortunate and disappointing we have to resort to
something like that.
Please do! Way I figure, it'll either work great and be a fantastic tool
to have, or at the very *worst*, if there turns out to be any downsides
to using it (vs a well-made built-in bool), then it will still serve to
help root out any areas where D can improve its in-library modeling
capabilities.
