On 2/24/12, Sean McBride <s...@rogue-research.com> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:36:51 -0700, Keary Suska said: > >>I don't believe this is the case. There can be funny issues with BOOL >>types, such that BOOL == YES is an inadvisable construct, since your >>BOOL could be an integer of any value. > > Indeed, and it's extremely frustrating. I encourage you to file bugs on > this, or maybe add a comment here: > > <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9194> >
Small tangent, but I think it's unlikely that Apple will change the definition of BOOL of signed char to C99 _Bool. They already missed ripe opportunities to do this with x86_64, iOS armv6 and armv7. Perhaps the new enhancement request we should be filing is to encourage the use of _Bool in all new APIs moving forward, especially in new frameworks. (It's not completely unprecedented; I've seen some other bool types used in the other Apple frameworks, plus we had that whole int->NSInteger change not too long ago.) -Eric -- Beginning iPhone Games Development http://playcontrol.net/iphonegamebook/ _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
