On Sunday, 12 May 2019 at 05:43:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
All this effort strongly implies that there's no such thing as a satisfactory bool type. Will you succeed where 10,000 other programmers have failed? Seems unlikely. But I doubt I will dissuade you from trying.


If you succeed at implementing bool, nobody debates it. As such, the huge debates are intrinsically of people failing at implementing bool. A successful boolean implementation is invisible.

So what does work reasonably? Treating it like a small integer.

Yes, because it's clearly succeeding at avoiding huge forum debates...

          • Re: bool ... Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • Re: ... Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jon Degenhardt via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • Re: ... Exil via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: bool ... Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: bool (was... FeepingCreature via Digitalmars-d-announce
    • Re: bool (was DConf 2... Mike Franklin via Digitalmars-d-announce
  • Re: DConf 2019 AGM Livestr... AurĂ©lien Plazzotta via Digitalmars-d-announce

Reply via email to