On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Roland Mainz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, David Korn <[email protected]> wrote: >> cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Re: [ast-developers] [rfe] typeset -B to define a (C99-like) >> <stdbool.h> datatype >> -------- >> >> Why bother with an alias? Why not just create Bool as a predefined type? > > Erm... I had a couple of reasons: > 1. All basic ksh93 types modelled after C types (e.g. integer, float, > compound) are aliases to the real type definitions > 2. C99 (see the <stdbool.h> manpage quote in my earlier email) says > "... bool - Expands to _Bool..." ... which IMO makes sense since C99 > allows to |#undef bool| and redefine it to something else. We can do > the same with $ unalias bool #. > 3. Irek suggested the same $ unalias bool # for the (very) unlikely > case ([a1]) that someone already uses "bool" as a command name
Yes, that is IMO a useful feature to migrate legacy code and IMO mandatory until your proposal for an unset -T (to unset type definitions) and unset -E (to unset enums) gets implemented. Aside from that I like the "consistency" argument - your point 1. above. Irek _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
