PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Erik Max Francis]

Terry Reedy wrote:

> Yesterday, I gave four reasons for prefering 'truth' (or something
> else) to bool.   Please consider them.  Already, my prediction in
> point D is being borne out in some subsequent posts by some.
> Something about the word 'bool(ean)' sets off something in some
> people's brain that makes them want cripple a formalized Python truth
> type by prohibiting currently valid and useful behavior.  I find this
> as offensive both to the spirit of Python and my programming freedom
> as the suggestion that sequence*int should be deprecated and then
> prohibited because it violates some standard of 'proper' sequence
> behavior.  Rather than have to put up with and have to argue against
> such suggestions for the rest of my life, I would rather switch to a
> different term that does not carry with it the baggage that 'bool' so
> obviously does.

But "truth" is the wrong word; you mean truth _value_.  Calling the type
name "truth" gives the impression that the only value it can have is
True :-).

This seems a semantic argument; I don't see any compelling reasons for
calling it anything other than the common name.  It doesn't make sense
to follow other languages' lead _for its own sake_, but it sure does if
that is by far and away the most common name for that type of thing. 
Such values are called "Booleans" (an instantly recognizeable name in
computer science) far more often than they're called "truth functional
values," or "truth values," or (more to the point) "truths."

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Nationalism is an infantile sickness.
\__/ Albert Einstein
    Alcyone Systems' Daily Planet / http://www.alcyone.com/planet.html
 A new, virtual planet, every day.