J C Calvarese wrote:

>
> I also fail to see the advantage of the bool alias. It seems inconsistent with the separation of language and library. Since bit is part of the language, why should we need to call the same thing "bool"? Perhaps bit is a naughty word in someone's culture, but it seems like an invitation to confusion to hide a subtle alias in object.d. (Of course, I'm also in favor of removing printf/wprintf from object.d.)


Yeah, it seems strange.  I guess it makes porting easier but we could just as well do a find/replace and learning for beginners.

Parhaps Walter plans to pull a fast one on us and switch the bool to some other type when we're not looking.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Sean Kelly wrote:

> ... But if I
> had my druthers we'd just do away with the bool alias and make a clean break
> with the past... which probably puts me in the minority on this list :)

I agree with you. I call it the Just Use Bit view.

> I do think that Phobos should document its interfaces using "bit" however.
> Mixing both terms seems inconsistent and slightly confusing to newcomers, and
> invites problems on the off chance that the definition of "bool" ever changes.

It looks like D will be stuck with the problem of some people using bit and other people using bool with no consistency. Oh well. Maybe Walter should make bool and boolean reserved words? ;)

James

J Anderson wrote:
> J C Calvarese wrote:
> 
>>
>> I also fail to see the advantage of the bool alias. It seems inconsistent with the separation of language and library. Since bit is part of the language, why should we need to call the same thing "bool"? Perhaps bit is a naughty word in someone's culture, but it seems like an invitation to confusion to hide a subtle alias in object.d. (Of course, I'm also in favor of removing printf/wprintf from object.d.)
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it seems strange.  I guess it makes porting easier but we could just as well do a find/replace and learning for beginners.
> 
> Parhaps Walter plans to pull a fast one on us and switch the bool to some other type when we're not looking.

That's kind of what I'm hoping and/or afraid of.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/