From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9ce51c75b076ab51a54e2c0352417143@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:02:10 -0400
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc
In-Reply-To: <463222D1.C28D798@null.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5220a382-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

good point.  except, dennis was mostly ignored. 
why should mortals expect different results?

i also don't understand your defence of _Bool.  why
add a type that behaves in a nonstandard manner?
i see two disadvantages with this approach.
1. the compiler must have special rules for a type
with irregular rules.
2. programmers must remember these special rules,
increasing the chance of error.

why would a typedef- or enum-based boolean type
fail to serve this purpose, assuming one is convinced
of the need for a boolean type.

- erik

On Fri Apr 27 12:23:36 EDT 2007, DAGwyn@null.net wrote:
> If you guys really care about this stuff, you should participate
> in the process, rather than sit on the sidelines and carp about
> what others have done.