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

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 30 Jan 2004, at 16:00, Alexander Malmberg wrote:

> Manuel Guesdon wrote:
> > My rule: be strict for output and flexible for input :-)
>
> A very good rule. :)
>
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/P/Postel's-Prescription.html
>
> > So what do we do ?
>
> I've attached a patch to our coding standards. OK to commit? If so, new
> code will work ok, and I'll get to work on patching core/ (hopefully
> with some help from David Ayers :).

Predictably perhaps,  I don't really like it ...

I think the idea a boolean type is an improvement over C, and it worries
me that being too tolerant will encourage bad coding (and may make
the code less readable).

If we want to mandate a standard way of testing the results of an 
operation
which is supposed to return a BOOL, perhaps use of a macro might be
better.
eg.

if (IsYes([receiver aMessage])) ...

Where the macro could log a warning or raise an exception (or do 
nothing)
for a non YES/NO value depending on a developers preferences.