Re: [boost] 3-state boolean type

From: Damien Fisher (damien_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-04 20:29:09

On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote:

> The problem is that while tribools have a well-understood calculus,
> they are suited to many varied interpretations.  Calling the third
> value "unknown", "undefined", "maybe", "bottom" or whatever sounds
> to me like calling your floating point type "length" or "probability".
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't think there is a better name, so I'm not
> going to argue with whatever is chosen.

How about "nonboolean"?

Of course, this doesn't generalize to "higher order" types like
quadbool.