I never thought boolean types were of any value at all, other than to complicate things.That's because you're a fuckwit.
0 is false - that much is certain, and that's what you need, a definition of certainty.Only if you're a religious nutcase... But I digress.
Back on track: So you only need "a definition of certainty" for FALSE, but NO "definition of certainty" for TRUE? Why is that? Where's the logic in it?
Note that true can be -1 or 1 - or really anything that is not 0.Yeah, that's SOOO "certain" and un-"complicated".
The most useful definition is true=-1, because it means the biggest unsigned integer - all the bits = 1. Whatever the number of bits, -1 will always be the state with all of them on.Only if you run it on a twos-complement processor. Or did you think that's somehow a Law Of Nature, or something...?
What's the point?Good question; personally, I don't think you have one, except hanging out your crankiness.
(Which, in your case, usually means hanging out your crank... And stepping on it.)
Boolean really should mean 2s complement arithmetic. It's not a type, it's an algebra.Only if you DEFINE it in the idiotic C way (and run it on a twos-complement processor).
Circular definition much, fuckwit?