Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Is bool no longer a primitive data type of C/C++ ?
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 16:05:21 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <87lffjs3su.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <w_idnQ8fnfTKqT3CnZ2dnUU7-IXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <1btuu7bstx.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> <rnpuqv$lj2$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7434a297a97e7f7cda6fff7078b4a493"; logging-data="8595"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185H7kJkoIzVTrqLslNr2Pp"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vwu205ZCZX3d6enAkTxd8I9jY/k= sha1:MxE1snhRwv8ox2AYJFFyNTOuqe0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:156401 comp.lang.c++:76805

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> "bool", "true" and "false" are valid identifiers in C, and so making
> them keywords in C99 would have broken existing code.  (C++ had them as
> keywords since the language was created - also, C++ is more willing to
> risk breakage in existing code than C is in new standards.)
[...]

That's not quite true.  C++ has had bool as a builtin type, and false
and true as keywords, since its first ISO standard, in 1998.  But the
first and second editions of Stroustrup's "The C Programming Language"
(1986 and 1991, respectively) don't mention bool, and for example
document that the "!" operator yields a result of type int with the
value 0 or 1.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */