Subject: Re: bool & UT_Bool
From: Vlad Harchev (hvv@hippo.ru)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 02:36:12 CST
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
That would be very nice IMO. No need to type brain-damaged 'UT_Bool' that is
longer than 'bool' and needs pressing shift for "UT_B" part.
Why don't use 'false' and 'true' too instead of UT_FALSE and UT_TRUE?
> Since almost (if not all) current compiler handles the keyword "bool" and
> also undertands it, maybe it's time to put a conditional compilation in for
> that one? Like "HAVE_BOOL", and then do the following:
>
> #ifdef HAVE_BOOL
> typedef bool UT_Bool;
> #define UT_FALSE false
> #define UT_TRUE true
> #else
> typedef int /*or whatever type we now use*/ UT_Bool;
> #define UT_FALSE 0
> #define UT_TRUE 1
> #endif
>
> What do *you* think?
>
> /Mike - please don't cc
>
Best regards,
-Vlad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 03:31:12 CST