From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Wed,  2 May 2007 08:33:08 +0000
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <46377F65.E20D18F1@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <FZmdnUfkvKHV0anbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com>,
	<20070501144533.GA14908@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5531202e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Jon Snader wrote:
> Indeed. This (_Bool) does seem to be a solution in search of a
> problem.  Is there anyone (other than a few refugees from Pascal)
> who believes that C suffers from its lack of a formal boolean
> type?

Obviously there were.

Numerous C programmers have created their own Boolean support,
e.g.:
	typedef int bool;
	#define false 0
	#define true 1
The fact that so many have done so argued that there was value
in a standardardized facility along those lines.

As to why the programmers thought it was worth doing, perhaps
they like for data types to match their function, so the source
code becomes more self-documenting and easier to understand;
"int" conveys nothing about a Boolean nature, and actually
suggests some sort of integral measurement of some property.