Re: new "empty" value/type in Lua?

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Tim Hill once stated:
> 
> Think about booleans in C; they don't exist as a 1st class type, but they
> DO have an agreed-upon standard representation (that compilers
> understand). If we didn't have that, every project would define it's own
> arbitrary true and false, and each project, by itself, would work fine.
> But then each 3rd party library you use would have a different standard,
> and you would have to have conversion logic to transition between their
> arbitrary boolean and yours; for each and every library. Urgh!

  Actually, I've seen plenty of C code improperly define the value for true. 
In C, a value of 0 is considered false, and *anything but 0* is considered
true, so (in my not so humble opinion) the best definition of TRUE and FALSE
would be:

#define FALSE	0
#define TRUE	!FALSE

But I've seen code that does:

#define TRUE	1
#define FALSE	0

which mostly works, but can fail in some obscure cases.  

  C99 solves that issue with _Bool (or bool, if you include <stdbool.h>) and
constants for true and false, so maybe there is something to this.

  -spc