On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Thomas Klausner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:49:27AM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: >> Urk; another reason not to use BOOL I guess :-) >> >> What does your iodbcunix.h include ? I guess we might need to do some >> hideous #define magic for the iodbcunix.h headers here: did you get a >> solution ? > > Not yet. > >> I might be tempted to do: >> >> #define BOOL IODBC_BOOL >> #include <iodbcunix.h> >> #undef BOOL > > If I only knew where it's included. > >> or somesuch, if this is the only conflict. > > Is a general sal_Bool -> Bool, sal_True -> true, sal_False -> false > replacement ok? Then we could remove that type...
nah. the replacement is BOOL -> bool but that is not quite as easy as a grep/sed since thre is a joyous mix of sal_Bool/BOOL/bool and some sal_Bool have to stay as unsigned char for ABI compatibility. so yes, getting rid of BOOL would solve the problem, but it is not a quick fix... see: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks#cleanup_.28very.29_obsolete_types Norbert > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > LibreOffice mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
