Re: true, false, and nil

[alan@... (Alan Watson)]

> if you really need to distinguish between "absent" and "present and false",
> then, yes, you need a representation for false that is diferent from nil.
> for example, true=1 false=0

This means that the expression "not true == false" is false. I
wouldn't like to write, let alone revise, such a program. (Similar
arguments hold for "typedef enum { false, true } boolean;" in C.)

> on the other hand, i think the "right" way to handle defaults is to use
> the "index" tag method, if you want to make distinguish between "absent" and
> "present and false",

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate, please?

> for configuration, i prefer:
> 
> writelog=nil
> sendmail=1

To use Hermia's words from A Midsummer Night's Dream: "I am amazed,
and know not what to say."

> i'm not trying to persuade you of anything, of course.
> but we don't think we need a boolean type.

Well, can you at least help me understand why you made this design
decision. For example, can you give me a single advantage of the
current design over one with a true boolean? I just don't get it.

Regards,

Alan Watson