In article <6495210.84230.22474@kcbbs.gen.nz>, martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Martin Kealey) writes
--> BTW: Has anyone considered that under and specification-based extended integer
--> range (such as proposed by Frank Farance), it is possible simply to say
-->
-->      typedef int fast exact:1 logical_t;

..but conceptually a Boolean is not the same as an integer in the range 0..1!

...plus I'm a bit worried how these new ways of specifying integers would interact
with overloading.  The set of integer types becomes quite large.

(Perhaps a built-in way of doing the equivalent of Ada's "T: type := new INTEGER"
(or however it goes) with T becoming overloadable-on would help.  I've often
felt the need to say (e.g.) "a priority is an integer (but it's not compatible
with a time-interval -- even though that's also an integer".  Of course, one can
do this already in C++, even if it's a bit tedious.)

-- jP --

J Scott Peter (scotty@netcom.com) wrote:
> I don't like `boolean', because why should so utterly simple a concept be
> named after some man who allegedly `discovered' it?

One of the common mis-conceptions surrounding the name is that Boolean
algebra implies a 2-value system, when it does not.  Check out any text on
formal logic if you doubt this.

What the mathematician did was formalise a system of set algebra that formed
a field, which as it happens contains the standard logical operations when
the set upon which the field is based is Z2 (set of non-negative integers
modulo 2).

In article <6495210.84230.22474@kcbbs.gen.nz>, martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Martin Kealey) writes
+ BTW: Has anyone considered that under and specification-based extended integer
+ range (such as proposed by Frank Farance), it is possible simply to say
+
+     typedef int fast exact:1 logical_t;

This indeed expozes the queerness of both propozals--but beware of "++":
this makes it flip the state, not make it "1".

Paul Long (plong@perf.com) says:
> mike@if.com (Mr.H) wrote:
> >What about this:  call the boolean type something other than
> >'bool' or 'boolean'.

> Some language, possibly PL/I, called these things "logicals," as in

>    logical p;

> How about "logical?"

What you're talking about is a binary variable: a variable that can take one
of two values.  That is the best name for the type: `binary'.  I don't like
`boolean', because why should so utterly simple a concept be named after
some man who allegedly `discovered' it?  I also don't like `logical',
because that term seems to have very little to do with the nature of the
type.  How is a binary variable any more (or less) logical than another
variable?

--
J Scott Peter XXXIII   //  Wrong thinking is punishable.
scotty@netcom.com     //  Right thinking is as quickly rewarded.
Los Angeles          //  You will find it an effective combination.

mike@if.com (Mr.H) wrote:
>What about this:  call the boolean type something other than
>'bool' or 'boolean'.

Some language, possibly PL/I, called these things "logicals," as in

   logical p;

How about "logical?"

--
Paul Long                               45:29:14N 122:48:09W
plong@perf.com                          http://www.teleport.com/~pciwww/
"Wagging head and tail, the red-tailed fish, unsupported, turns around."