On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 02:48:21PM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 05.12.2009, at 14:29, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > 
> >>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> writes:
> > 
> > Bert> I don't think it would break any sane application. #asInteger is
> > Bert> descriptive, and "feels right" to me. Reading "asBit" I'd expect it to
> > Bert> return an instance of Bit.
> > 
> > Bert> I have not really felt the need for such a method, but I can see how
> > Bert> it's tempting to have, in particular when porting code.
> > 
> > It's also "according to who".  0 as false, 1 as true is only one encoding,
> > and clearly not universal.  I've worked with systems where 0 is false,
> > and -1 is true.
> 
> I knew someone would bring this up ;) I also like to KISS.
> 
> This is not about internal representation, but about doing arithmetic with
> booleans. I don't think any other mapping than "true asInteger = 1" and
> "false asInteger = 0" makes sense in that context.

I don't think that arithmetic with booleans makes sense in any context.

Is this convenience method really worth muddying up the distinction between
numbers and booleans? Think of all the C programmers with bad habits
(like me for example) who have had to stop and think twice about assuming
that a number means the same thing as true or false.

It seems to me that maintaining a clear distinction between numbers and
booleans is a Good Idea even if it does require some extra typing.

$0.02

Dave