u3 specification underspecifies loobeans

[MostAwesomeDude]

Hi!

While reading the u3 documentation on integer types, I noticed that loobeans are specified using a C numeric type:

typedef uint8_t c3_o;   // loobean

And the docs explain that this is to mimic Nock: "A loobean is a Nock boolean - Nock, for mysterious reasons, uses 0 as true (always say 'yes') and 1 as false (always say 'no')."

However, C numeric types always can hold many more values than just 0 and 1. For example, 2 is a valid value for the c3_o type. In that case, would 2 be considered true, or considered false? Is there a de facto standard already?

[juped]

• You should ignore the numeric values and use comparisons against c3y and c3n for everything.
• You can safely assume that a c3_o produced by our functions is either c3y or c3n. If you don't feel safe assuming this for whatever reason, guard against it. Values besides c3y and c3n are not valid.

[juped]

Closed as explained