From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <509071940705010851gab1931evde6f125f37c963f2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:51:07 -0400 From: "Anthony Sorace" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>, "Jon Snader" Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc In-Reply-To: <20070501144533.GA14908@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <817ee90e37ad2a8ace10b9e70ee57161@coraid.com> <20070501144533.GA14908@ix.netcom.com> Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54ae3380-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 5/1/07, Jon Snader wrote: > Is there anyone (other than a few refugees from Pascal) > who believes that C suffers from its lack of a formal boolean > type? i think that's the wrong question. i know plenty of people who believe C suffers from its lack of a formal boolean type, but the correct question for folks like standards bodies (and the peanut gallery here, for whatever we matter) is whether adding it (in any particular form) justifies the cost (in terms of added complexity, architectural mismatch, monetary cost of implementation, or whatever criteria one chooses) of adding it to the standard. personally, i think any advantages of _Bool over the plethora of ad-hoc implementations are not worth the oddities and discongruity that go with this implementation. as i'm not a C compiler implementor and don't generally miss boolean types myself, i'm not going to complain too much.