
Just add a little gasoline, and stir!_____;-)
Actually, I don't understand why the decrement operator is not defined on a bool. However, if I were the king of X3J16, I'd not support a wrap-around approach to the increment or decrement operators. I'd support:
\nfalse++ == true\nfalse-- == false\ntrue-- == false\ntrue++ == true\n
(with the pre-increment and pre-decrement operators working the same way.)
I'd also not support implicit conversions to or from bool; you'd have to explicitly cast a non-bool to a bool or vice versa. (That should mitigate Todd's objections a teensy bit....)