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

[Philippe C . D . Robert]

On Feb 3, 2004, at 1:26 AM, Helge Hess wrote:
> On 02.02.2004, at 22:03, Philippe C.D.Robert wrote:
> > > I think everybody understood your point on that, but no one shares 
> > > it ;-) There is no Obj-C standard and the GCC implementation is 
> > > *the* reference implementation we are talking about.
> > Uhm, this is like saying NeXT's/Apple's ObjC runtime is the reference 
> > wrt ObjC runtimes, just because there is no spec...
>
> Yes, of course. Thats somewhat obvious, isn't it? ;-)

:-)

<snip>

> > I am sure the BOOL "type" has been introduced because there was a 
> > need for a true boolean type, unfortunately there was no such type in 
> > C back then, but if a real boolean had been available in the late 
> > 80ies they would have used it instead, I am pretty sure.
>
> Well, in my interpretation it was introduced to express booleans, not 
> to have a true boolean type. And nobody is questioning the usefulness 
> of BOOL, in question is just the level of C compatibility.

Well yes, I do not share your opinion here :-)

> > Besides nobody really could give good reasons yet for the existence 
> > of BOOLs which take anything else than YES and NO.
>
> Hu?! There were loads of reasons, didn't you read the posts?!

The only reasons I can find are compatibility with existing source code 
and compatibility with C truth values which are IMO both weak arguments 
in this context (if at all), as they are not explaining the real need 
or justification for such a construct. Did I miss something else?

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip/