Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Merged the both tech patches a little bit

[Artur Biesiadowski <abies@xxxxxxxxx>]

David Pfitzner wrote:
> 

> > -  return unit_types[id].flags & (1<<flag);
> > +  return (unit_types[id].flags & (1<<flag))?TRUE:FALSE;
> >
> > But I actually don't know if it makes problems
> > (e.g. if a caller assumes that the flag is on the correct
> > place)
> 
> I think this is what it should be.
> 
> Actually I've been meaning to introduce a macro eg, BOOL()
> which converts to 0,1 (or TRUE,FALSE), to prettify some
> things, especially in code I added in tilespec changes.
> 
> But we could have a flameware/competition about how BOOL()
> should be defined ;-)
> Eg,
> #define BOOL(x) ((x) ? 1 : 0)
> #define BOOL(x) ((x) ? TRUE : FALSE)
> #define BOOL(x) (!!(x))
> #define BOOL(x) (1-!(x))

And why do not use just 
return (unit_types[id].flags & (1<<flag)) != 0;   
?


BOOL seems to be a wrapper to do C-ish conversion of anything to bool -
it defeats it's main advantage (less typing) and does not add any type
safety.

Artur