[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: false [was: The "Is nil present in a table" problem}
- From: Edgar Toernig <froese@...>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:45:05 +0100
Paul Chakravarti wrote:
> >> (http://lua-users.org/wiki/BooleanTypeProposal)
> I had a slight question/concern with the following -
> -- Relational operators return false for false and a value other than
> -- false/nil for true
In fact, they always return the number 1 for true. Maybe it's better
to say that explicitely (and define true to be 1). That way
(a==b) == (c==d)
and alike becomes valid.
> For orthogonality I would be useful to also have a 'true' type such
> -- Relational operators return 'false' for false and 'true' for true
> Assuming 'true' was a non-nil value I dont believe this changes the
> semantics of any relational operators
And then define that if/while/not/... only accept 'false' and 'true'?
I thought about it myself but IMHO it complicates things more than
it would help.