Calling an argument a straw man implies _TO ME_ that the argument
intentionally missed the point. I repeat: it means that _TO ME_. Maybe
that's just the interpretation of a non-native English speaker.

Lew, are you trolling or do you just not understand? I cut you some slack
until now, but as already said your behaviour is simply annoying. If you
took the time to actually read and understand what I said, and maybe ask
instead of assuming things, you would see this:

1. You wrote: "It's still an int.", where 'it' can only refer to the
mentioning of C's _Bool type in a sentence you quoted. IOW you said that
a '_Bool' is an 'int'.

2. I said that it is a keyword. Note that this doesn't directly attack your
argument, rather it mentions the fact that it's a keyword in order to show
that 'int' and '_Bool' are separate types and thus implicitly that
a '_Bool' is not an 'int'. If you really meant 'integral value' when you
wrote 'int' then you simply need to pay better attention to what you are
saying so that it better corresponds to what you mean.

3. To that you answer:

Which clearly shows that you either didn't understand or chose to ignore
what I said. I did for example never say that you said it was a typedef.
Really, go back and read it, there is no such claim! In fact if I could
have called that claim of yours an invalid argument, but I didn't do that
because I first assume a misunderstanding, a simple communication error and
not that you are trolling.

You are completely missing the point of a straw man, which is to make a
pseudo-argument. However, I did not make an argument, I merely pointed out
that I consider your behaviour questionable.

Please, read the above quoted paragraph ("BTW: I find..") again: I wasn't
arguing anything, I was merely pointing out a fact, namely how I perceived
your behaviour. Please pay attention to things like "I find" or "to me". I
intentionally worded it like that to make sure that it is understood as a
subjective, personal statement.

Uli