On 18 November 2017 at 19:26, Berthold Stoeger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Samstag, 18. November 2017 17:34:59 CET Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote: >> On 18 November 2017 at 18:19, Berthold Stoeger >> > On the other hand, many of the boolean settings are indeed defined as >> > short. Shouldn't this be made consistent? >> >> both sizeof(short) and sizeof(bool) are implementation defined. >> i think this can be changed, yes...and let's see if we break >> something; bool should be mostly 1 byte everywhere. > > Sure, but can these definitions be different for C and C++ on any sane > platform? The current code seems to assume that they are the same, otherwise > pref.h would break in horrible ways, wouldn't it? > > By the way, I wasn't suggesting bool over short, just that it should be either > one or the other. Not a completely random mix as it is now. So I take you > would vote for bool? >
yes, i understood the suggestion and i've implied that we should try to be consistent - use bool: > i think this can be changed, yes...and let's see if we break something; > bool should be mostly 1 byte everywhere. so my point was that we can attempt to rely on the fact that the C and C++ bool is *probably* 1 byte. lubomir -- _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
