Re: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?

[Alexander Malmberg]

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

If, at some point in the distant future, BOOL falls out of use and c99
is supported everywhere, we could redefine GNUstep's interface using
_Bool, and deprecate and later remove BOOL completely.

- Alexander Malmberg