Subject: Re: bool & UT_Bool
From: Sam TH (sam@uchicago.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 16:17:18 CST
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 11:13:45AM +0100, Mike Nordell wrote:
> 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?
The only potential problem is that we have lots of functions that take
or return UT_Bool, and may not like being passed plain old bool.
Unless, of course, you are volunteering to change every reference to
UT_bool in the code. :-)
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 16:17:19 CST