On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 15:19 +0800, rong deng wrote:
2012/7/2 David Henningsson david.hennings...@canonical.com:
I don't think there is any reason to not do s/pa_bool_t/bool/g. Probably the
reason for this might be historical, as some compilers may have supported
some C99 features but not
2012/7/5 Arun Raghavan arun.ragha...@collabora.co.uk:
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 15:19 +0800, rong deng wrote:
2012/7/2 David Henningsson david.hennings...@canonical.com:
I don't think there is any reason to not do s/pa_bool_t/bool/g. Probably
the
reason for this might be historical, as some
On 06/30/2012 12:36 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
Hi,
We handle booleans with these definitions:
/* This type is not intended to be used in exported APIs! Use classic int
there! */
#ifdef HAVE_STD_BOOL
typedef bool pa_bool_t;
#else
typedef int pa_bool_t;
#endif
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:45:42 +0200, David Henningsson
david.hennings...@canonical.com wrote:
It might make sense to keep something like
#ifndef HAVE_STD_BOOL
typedef int bool;
I sincerely don't recommend that kind of hacks.
int and bool are completely different things. The representation in
On 07/02/2012 09:26 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:45:42 +0200, David Henningsson
david.hennings...@canonical.com wrote:
It might make sense to keep something like
#ifndef HAVE_STD_BOOL
typedef int bool;
I sincerely don't recommend that kind of hacks.
int and bool are
Hi,
We handle booleans with these definitions:
/* This type is not intended to be used in exported APIs! Use classic int
there! */
#ifdef HAVE_STD_BOOL
typedef bool pa_bool_t;
#else
typedef int pa_bool_t;
#endif
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE ((pa_bool_t) 0)
#endif
#ifndef TRUE
#define TRUE
