Subject: Re: bool & UT_Bool
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 04:13:45 CST
Vlad Harchev 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?
I can imagine that it was because some earlier (i.e. bloody M$) compiler(s)
(anno 1996) didn't understand these two-three keyword, but they were
"reserved" for future implementation, why you'd get a compile time error.
But then again we migh as well change my (ugly) proposition to
#if !defined(SUPPORTS_BOOL)
#define bool int
#define true 1
#define false 0
#else
// intentionally empty
#endif
Does anyone see *any* problem with this (IMHO long awaited) proposal?
/Mike - as usual, please don't cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 04:11:57 CST