On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Cedric Blancher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
What's the status of the ksh93 bool datatype? Will the type be available in the next alpha? Is there a patch we can test? Irek _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
