Self-contradiction, and logically inconsistent definition.
Ross exposes the depths of his (and C's) illogic:
Because false implies the possibility of true. Otherwise there is no meaning to false. Therefore the Boolean "type" is superfluous.
So, following that line of (what I will perhaps to charitably call) reasoning: "Because the existence of an integer i implies the existence of the next one, i+1, the integer type is superfluous."
That's funny -- down here on Earth, it's usually accepted that precisely *because* integers behave in one way that is particular to them and not to anything else, that's why you *do* need (or at least, want) a specific type "integer".
(Extending a parallel to the behaviour of true/false values and a boolean type is left as an excercise for the reader with brains bigger than his haemmorhoids.)
What you need is false and not false.
Exactly. And since "not false" _I_S_ true, this means that what you need is false and true.
You could turn it around of course, and call 0 "true". This isn't so odd. When a return code is 0, that's good and it means the function worked "truly".
Actually, while C *doesn't* turn it around in if statements (i.e, 0 is "false" there), in function return codes it *does* work exactly as you say! So on the one hand, 0 is "false", but AT THE SAME TIME it means "worked TRULY". And you claim any *change* to this illogical piece of shit is the problem?!? You need to get your head examined, man!
Alternatively, you (and Todd) could just admit that you don't really give a shit about all the logic and consistency you're *talking* about, but just don't want to accept that anything you learned twenty-five years ago could possibly not have been the ultimate pinnacle of reason and sense you once thought it was. Because that _I_S_ where the real problem is for you two, isn't it?
Do I need to explain it more?
Don't try to be condescending to me, Bubba -- it only works *downwards*.
(PS: I'm listening to Steppenwolf 7 - "Renegade - Foggy Mental Breakdown - Hippo Stomp". That was invented in 1970.)
Yeah, well, "listening" -- but you're probably listening to it with utter disdain.
(BTW, _Der Steppenwolf_ (the one from 1927, that is) is way over-rated, AFAICS.)
