From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:29:12 +0000 From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: References: <463222D1.C28D798@null.net>, <9ce51c75b076ab51a54e2c0352417143@coraid.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc Topicbox-Message-UUID: 52814ca0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 "erik quanstrom" wrote in message news:9ce51c75b076ab51a54e2c0352417143@coraid.com... > good point. except, dennis was mostly ignored. > why should mortals expect different results? To the extent that Dennis provided input to the C standards effort, he was certainly not ignored! Indeed, sizeof(char)==1 and restrict instead of noalias were both direct responses to his input. > i also don't understand your defence of _Bool. why > add a type that behaves in a nonstandard manner? It is just an arithmetic type with width at least 1, and conversion rules aimed at maximizing its Boolean nature. It is a pity that the result of relational expressions (for example) cannot be Boolean, for reasons of historical compatibility, but that's not the fault of _Bool (or plain "bool" as it is meant to be used via ). > 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. There are a number of possible solutions. _Bool and were selected as the best proposal under the existing constraints (don't break all the existing code already using typedef int bool, allow C++ compatibility, etc.).