On 14 December 2012 10:52, Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
I agree with that conclusion. Ced -- Cedric Blancher <[email protected]> Institute Pasteur _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
