On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:55:56PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> > - /* Forbid using -- on `bool'. */
>> > + /* Forbid using -- or ++ in C++17 on `bool'. */
>> > if (TREE_CODE (declared_type) == BOOLEAN_TYPE)
>> > {
>> > if (code == POSTDECREMENT_EXPR || code == PREDECREMENT_EXPR)
>> > @@ -6040,6 +6040,20 @@ cp_build_unary_op (enum tree_code code, tree xarg,
>> > int noconvert,
>> > "to %<operator--%>");
>> > return error_mark_node;
>> > }
>> > + else
>> > + {
>> > + if (cxx_dialect >= cxx1z)
>> > + {
>> > + if (complain & tf_error)
>> > + error ("use of Boolean expression as operand "
>> > + "to %<operator++%> is forbidden in C++1z");
>>
>> The capitalization of Boolean here caught my eye because it's
>> inconsistent with the recent spelling adopted in the documentation.
>> (It's also missing an article "a Boolean expression," although
>> dropping those is common in diagnostics. Still, it would be nice
>> to have a guideline/convention and use it consistently.)
>>
>> Back to Boolean, I was actually going to comment on the Boolean
>> -> boolean change and suggest going in the opposite direction but
>> in the end decided not to (as Sandra's links showed, there's support
>> for both).
>>
>> But having seen Boolean capitalized here I have changed my mind
>> again. I'd like to (belatedly) speak up in support of Boolean
>> (though I feel less strongly about it than I do about consistency).
>
> Well, my point was to get rid of this inconsistency, I don't really
> care whether it's Boolean or boolean. But since boolean was used
> most of the time, I went with that.
Martin's point, which I agree with, is that for C++ we want to use
"bool" rather than either of those.
Jason
