On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 21:32:32 UTC, Tove wrote:
On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 21:01:17 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 06:01:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The real issue is do you want to have the implicit
conversions:
0 => false
1 => true
or would you require a cast?
The idea of a "true number" and a "false number" doesn't make
sense, so yes.
I find the current implementation perfectly intuitive and I
wouldn´t want it any other way... it models the underlying
hardware, just the way it should be.
Sometimes due to bad coding standards I´m forced to write...
if((.....long expression with not immediately apparent operator
precedence)!=0)
... absolutely appalling, kills readability with extra () etc.
doesn´t matter how many years, I was forced to do it, I still
cringe every time I see a line like that and itch to rewrite it
more readable.
That is totally irrelevant as a cast is already inserted
automatically.
