"erik quanstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > good point. except, dennis was mostly ignored. > why should mortals expect different results?
To the extent that Dennis provided input to the C standards effort, he was certainly not ignored! Indeed, sizeof(char)==1 and restrict instead of noalias were both direct responses to his input. > i also don't understand your defence of _Bool. why > add a type that behaves in a nonstandard manner? It is just an arithmetic type with width at least 1, and conversion rules aimed at maximizing its Boolean nature. It is a pity that the result of relational expressions (for example) cannot be Boolean, for reasons of historical compatibility, but that's not the fault of _Bool (or plain "bool" as it is meant to be used via <stdbool.h>). > why would a typedef- or enum-based boolean type > fail to serve this purpose, assuming one is convinced > of the need for a boolean type. There are a number of possible solutions. _Bool and <stdbool.h> were selected as the best proposal under the existing constraints (don't break all the existing code already using typedef int bool, allow C++ compatibility, etc.).
