Re: [HACKERS] TRUE and true

At Thu, 22 Jun 2017 09:13:56 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote in <08678a07-3967-8567-59e5-b9bcced7f...@2ndquadrant.com> > On 6/22/17 07:09, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > What makes us have both TRUE/true or FALSE/false as constants of > > bool? > > Historical

Re: [HACKERS] TRUE and true

At Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:35:13 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote in

Re: [HACKERS] TRUE and true

On 6/22/17 07:09, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > What makes us have both TRUE/true or FALSE/false as constants of > bool? Historical reasons, probably. I plan to submit a patch to phase out or remove TRUE/FALSE as part of a migration toward stdbool.h. So I suggest you use lower case and don't worry

Re: [HACKERS] TRUE and true

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI < horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, I have a maybe-silly question. > > What makes us have both TRUE/true or FALSE/false as constants of > bool? > > The following definitions in c.h didn't mess anything up. > > #define TRUEtrue

[HACKERS] TRUE and true

Hello, I have a maybe-silly question. What makes us have both TRUE/true or FALSE/false as constants of bool? The following definitions in c.h didn't mess anything up. #define TRUEtrue #define FALSE false # NIL seems causing similar mess. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source