Paul Prescod wrote to Tim: > Here are other languages that (based on some admittedly cursory research) treat booleans > as entirely distinct from > integers: > * Scheme > * SML > * JavaScript > * Visual Basic > * Eiffel > * Smalltalk > I'd be curious to hear a list of high level, GC'd languages in the other camp. Methinks > your Fortran/C bias shows. ;) And it isn't pretty." Add to your list, "Fortran", which has type "logical". This makes the bias comment self-canceling, but reinforces the argument against bool being a special case of int. I think bools as ints started as a "close to the hardware" motivation, and doesn't have much of a place in modern programming. All the arguments for it seem to be claims for ease of expression but against it is ease of correctness. I think the latter is necessary and the former a nicety. BTW, the Fortran standard does not specify a representation for logical, and there was even a period where mixing libraries compiled with different compilers on the the Crays could get errors because the representations differed. One compiler had chosen to use a hardware feature that made it quick to test a sign bit. This points out another fallacy with making bool a subclass of int -- it binds the implementation too much to one view. True + True is neither True nor False. Hmmmmmm....
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4