Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?)

[Helge Hess]

On 02.02.2004, at 20:47, Nicola Pero wrote:
> > I would again like to point out that if the intention was to limit 
> > BOOL
> > to YES and NO, it would have been defined as
> >    typedef enum { YES, NO } BOOL;
>
> Wouldn't this have been a waste a space just to just store a YES/NO ?

Well, isn't that you who is suggesting that a "true boolean" is worth 
major restrictions? ;-)

Your point is pretty mood because:
a) BOOL is *NOT* specified to be char and indeed is not mapped to char 
on
   some platforms
b) even char is as wasteful requiring 8 times the memory necessary
   (which is why everyone is using bitfields anyway) - apparently it is
   worth that

Is int more wasteful than that:
@interface MyFunkyObject
{
  BOOL a;
  BOOL b;
}
I guess not, because a and b are probably aligned to 32 bits 
boundaries. Is
- (void)doIt:(BOOL)_a
more wasteful than int? I also guess not, because the register _a is 
being passed in is available in any case and probably not going to be 
shared by multiple char variables.

In short: the practical gain of using char for BOOL is minimal, 
especially in comparison to the already wasteful use of char instead of 
a bit.

Greets,
  Helge

PS: this discussion is a lot of fun - and I indeed learned a lot I 
didn't knew before ;-)
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org