G'Day Paul,
 
-=> Quoting Paul Edwards to Peter Collis <=-
 JG> #define TRUE  0
 JG> #define FALSE !TRUE
 PC> ~~~   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 PC> I think defining FALSE to a non-zero value would be a bad habit to get
 PC> into, it would be better to always assume FALSE to be zero.
Most of the time we act on a TRUE condition and abort on FALSE though, so
it really doesn't matter what FALSE is.
What really freaks me is that FALSE is defined as 0, so according to 
that, are the next lines true or false ?

strcmp("hello","hello");  hardly FALSE, but it is 0.
system("wontfindme.exe");  worse than FALSE ? :)

..or is this just a booboo, nobody wants to change ?

In both cases, and in most C functions if FALSE was defined !TRUE and 
TRUE was defined 0, the returned results would make more sense.
                                   
  L8r Frank (fadam{at}ozemail.com.au).
  
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.21                    

--- Maximus 3.01