[Freeciv-Dev] Re: PATCH change_specialist

[Stewart Adcock <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Why not use the C99 boolean type when available (i.e. in gcc), which can 
be checked in the configure script, and default to int, or short, or 
something otherwise?
Maybe:
#if _USE_C99_SOURCE
typedef _Bool boolean;
#else
typedef short boolean;
#endif

Then the compiler will check it, when the feature is available.

Stewart.

Gregor Zeitlinger wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Raimar Falke wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 03:13:48PM +0100, Gregor Zeitlinger wrote:
> >
> > > > Whats wrong with TRUE and FALSE?
> > > I just thought, if some parts of the code will be taken to Java, it makes
> > > it easier, since Java has no preprocessor.
> > Can sed be used for this?
> probably, but thats not a desirable way as it adds an extra unnecessary
> step and reduces readablity.
>
>
> > > > > +typedef int boolean;
> > > > A "can" or "is" in the function name is enough to indicate a boolean
> > > > return type.
> > > it's more clear that way. It follows the approach to make code more
> > > readable. Thus, boolean indicates that only true and false are allowed and
> > > any assignment statement to a boolean variable should be that way.
> > However in C the compiler doesn't check it. So it IMHO equivalent to
> > write "return boolean" in a comment.
> ??? The C compiler treats it as an int, AFAIK.

--
____________________________________________________________________
Stewart Adcock   stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   www.stewart-adcock.co.uk
Dept. Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego
4234 Urey Hall, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0365 USA
lab: +1 858 534 0956 home: +1 858 453 2577