[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?)
From: |
Nicola Pero |
Subject: |
Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?) |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:36:35 +0000 (GMT) |
> If you're unsure about what your c code really means, it's certainly a
> good idea to be careful about generating BOOL values, and to use only
> YES and NO. I don't even see anyone arguing that this shouldn't be in
> the coding standard for GNUstep (something like "Code that produces BOOL
> values must produce only the values YES (1) and NO (0).").
I agree with Alexander here, and I would even go as far as saying that
isYes() shouldn't be mentioned in the coding standards.
isYes() should be compatible with the coding standards, but not compulsory
(in other words, I don't like isYes(), but I'm fine if other people like
it).
Of course, I also agree that when isYes() is used, it should be possible
to set a flag to have it work as isYes(X) --> ((X) != NO).
=
At the moment, the two main recommendations we get from this discussion
are -
* avoid comparing BOOLs to YES directly (to avoid traps with code using
non-0 for YES)
* prefer code explicitly returning/assigning YES and NO (to avoid traps
with implicit conversions from non-0 to YES)
I believe we all agree on those. So let's just write those in the coding
standards. :-)
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), (continued)
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Pascal J . Bourguignon, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), David Ayers, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Pascal J . Bourguignon, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), David Ayers, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Pascal J . Bourguignon, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/02/10
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), David Ayers, 2004/02/10
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Alexander Malmberg, 2004/02/10
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?),
Nicola Pero <=
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/02/08
Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Alexander Malmberg, 2004/02/10