On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 09.05.09 12:50, Felipe Contreras ([email protected]) wrote: > >> > pa_bool_t is used internally only. In the public API we only expose >> > ints. pa_bool_t is defined as _Bool on C99 and int on other >> > compilers. This discrepancy should not be visible to outside due to >> > ABI stability issues. >> >> Minor comment; if you include stdbool.h you can use 'bool' which IMHO >> is less ugly than _Bool. And I wonder what's the point of pa_bool_t... >> if the compiler doesn't have stdbool.h, then just define 'bool' as you >> would define pa_bool_t. > > There's not much difference between _Bool, and bool. Both are C99.
Nope, the only difference is that 'bool' looks nicer :) > I guess 10 years after C99 it might be possible to drop C89 > support. But uh, the API uses int for all bools and we should stick to > it for now. This is what I meant: #if HAVE_STDBOOL_H #include <stdbool.h> #else typedef unsigned char bool #endif -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://tango.0pointer.de/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
