[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?)
From: |
Adam Fedor |
Subject: |
RE: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?) |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:13:03 -0500 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ayers
> One question Alex brought up on #GNUstep is the visibility of
> isYES().
> On the one hand I beleive it should be public and used through
> GNUstep+Libs+Apps. OTOH it may interefer with third party
> code. If we
> want to make it internal to each package, it would be OK with me.
>
If we plan on using it thoughout GNUstep, we should probably make it public (as
an extension) and probably document it also - people tend to use the stuff they
see in the GNUstep source in their own code. I don't think there will be an
issue with conflicting macros.
- RE: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?),
Adam Fedor <=
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/02/07
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), David Ayers, 2004/02/07
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/02/07
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), David Ayers, 2004/02/07
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Pascal J . Bourguignon, 2004/02/07
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Nicola Pero, 2004/02/07
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/02/09
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?), Pascal J . Bourguignon, 2004/02/09