3 ms·
No, it's not. Adding a new built-in type that doesn't participate in type-checking in any meaningful way just clutters the language. _Bool is like int, just hav
by zvrba 15y ago
No, it's not. Adding a new built-in type that doesn't participate in type-checking in any meaningful way just clutters the language. _Bool is like int, just having unspecified size and slower, since the compiler has to ensure that it shall contain etiher 0 or 1.
Very little, if anything, would have been lost by standardizing "typedef unsigned bool;"
- dextorious 15y ago"""No, it's not. Adding a new built-in type that doesn't participate in type-checking in any meaningful way just clutters the language.""" 1) It's not about type-checking, it's about reading code. 2) It's not like type-checking is C's strong point.