On Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 21:59:50 UTC, eles wrote:
On Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 21:52:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/27/2013 2:29 PM, Rob T wrote:
Because writing cast(bool)0 and cast(bool)1 is unappealing.
why need to write that? just drop the bool type entirely and go
ahead with an integer that you interpret as a boolean.
The problem is that Walter appears to want the convenience of a
real bool type, but also the convenience of a real bit type, all
merged together into one container that is confusingly labeled as
'bool'.
See my previous post about the problems caused when merging two
conceptually different things into one container and then make it
appear as if it stores only one of the conceptually different
things - sometimes. Thats never a good idea.
We can solve the problem by defining a real boolean type and a
real bit type and allow explicit casting if required (which
should be rare).
--rt
