VETO - none of the other XEmacs developers saw any advantage in actually using a bool type themselves. - Trying to use C99 standard bool types may be difficult, since C99 bools may be unimplementable using C89. The distinctions can be subtle, e.g. bool x = 42; printf ("%dn", x); should print a) 1 b) 42 ?? Perhaps C89, C99, and C++ bools will all work slightly differently. - As a consequence of the above, it would be easier to create our own bool type, e.g. bOO1 (I bet no one is using that symbol) but then we lose the recognizability of `bool' as defined in the standards. - We haven't finished with Mulizing, do we really need Boolizing? Martin M> ChangeLog: M> 1999-12-05 Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org&gt; M> * configure.in: Autodetect stdbool.h. M> src/ChangeLog: M> 1999-12-05 Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org&gt; M> * config.h.in: Add HAVE_STDBOOL_H. M> * lisp.h: #include <stdbool.h>, or roll our own. Define bool8_t.