Re: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?

[Philippe C.D. Robert]

Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> Nicola Pero wrote:
>
> > > It isn't an implementation detail since it means that BOOL isn't a true
> > > boolean type. Compare this with c99's _Bool, which is a true boolean
> > > type:
> >
> > It's nice you mention the c99's boolean type; I suppose it would make
> > sense to try have BOOL as compatible as possible with the c99's bool type,
> > hoping that at some point they will be merged.
>
> I disagree. BOOL isn't a true boolean, and should remain that way. Those

Now *this* seems strange to me. IMHO it is wrong to use BOOL as 
something else than a boolean, just because the implementation does not 
prevent such "misuse".

In fact I'd say it woul be a GoodThing to change the implementation to 
be more strict in this respect.

> who want to use _Bool in their own code can just go ahead and do that
> (it'll interoperate just fine with BOOL).

But this would lead to really strange code...

Just my SFr. 0.02 :-)

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip/