Subject: Re: UT_Bool vs bool
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 13:28:32 CST
At 11:35 AM 2/3/01 +0100, Mike Nordell wrote:
>OK, we have probably concluded that UT_Bool is not really needed anymore.
>
>Should we allow "bool" into the src and just
> typedef bool UT_Bool;
> #define UT_TRUE true
> #define UT_FALSE false
>
>and allow the use of the bool keyword in new files (and allow changing from
>UT_Bool to plain bool in exisiting files when anyway editing those)?
If this is the proposal, no. That's a good test, but a bad solution.
It seems pretty clear that all existing platforms and compilers (on
Tinderbox at least) will tolerate the change, but that was never the issue,
was it? The reason for the #defines is to protect against weirdness on
future platforms.
If the consensus is that people are willing to drop support for any crufty
old compiler that doesn't support bool and friends, then go the whole way
and purge UT_Bool entirely. There are plenty of script whizzes here who
could generate the necessary commit.
That way, there's no ambiguity. If you want to build AbiWord on the
platform of your choice, and your toolchain doesn't properly support bool,
then you're SOL.
That's what the real vote should be about.
Paul
PS: Our original philosophy was to just keep typing the few extra UT_
characters as a defensive technique to avoid ever worrying about the issue,
but we're old-time ANSI C guys. YMMV.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 13:20:55 CST