On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 17:25:15 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 16:39:47 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Walter and Andrei take the position that this is incorrect the
wrong way to view a bool.
Unfortunately you did not include their justification for this
position (if any). To me it would be interesting to know about
the reasoning that is behind this position.
Maybe you didn't read the link to their reasoning in the DIP, but
it's quite simple: they view a bool as an integral type with two
possible values, a `bit` if you like. As such, they prefer to fit
it into the existing scheme for integral types rather than
special-casing booleans as Mike proposed.
