G'Day David,
 
-=> Quoting David Nugent to Frank Adam <=-

 FA> What really freaks me is that FALSE is defined as 0, so according to
 FA> that, are the next lines true or false ?

 DN> But these functions don't return boolean information. They 
 DN> return something DIFFERENT, such as a result code, or a 
 DN> value useful for comparison.
That entire msg was a slip of the keyboard :)
Well, not entirely. I was looking at it from a different angle, strcmp() 
was obviously a bad example, but on others return values are 0 and -1 
where 0 is success.
From a logical point of view, a function's success to me would mean TRUE.
So it seems illogical then, to make that function return a value, which in 
another context is failure. I do wonder if there was any reason why our 
compiler writing forefathers did it this way ? :) 
From what i've read in another echo, -1 as a return code is not even legal 
in dos ?
                      
  L8r Frank (fadam{at}ozemail.com.au).
  
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.21

--- Maximus 3.01