G'Day Andrew,
 
-=> Quoting Andrew Clarke to Frank Adam <=-
 AC> 22 Apr 96 10:03, Frank Adam wrote to Paul Edwards:
 
 > After all if an operation was successful, in boolean terms it would be
 > TRUE, so functions returning 1 on success and 0 on failure would make
 > more sense.

 AC> You're saying a value of 1 be the only representation of True?  Why?
No , i was saying that in a boolean test True = 1 and False = 0, so the
functions returning a 0 on success seem out of sorts, not to mention it 
limiting my ability or desire to test the return value as a bool True.

Oh, yes i could have: if(!strcmp("bla","bla")) dothat();
Do we like that ? ;)



  L8r Frank (fadam{at}ozemail.com.au).
  
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.21

--- Maximus 3.01