|
| From: | Richard Frith-Macdonald |
| Subject: | Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?) |
| Date: | Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:52:45 +0000 |
On 9 Feb 2004, at 10:25, David Ayers wrote:
simple is()/_is() may be less bulky than my previous alternatives and won't be as hard to parse in comparisons involving NO.
That sounds good. I think I'd prefer '_is()' , but don't care much either way.
I'd be in favor of emitting a warning and "BOOLifying*" by default and possibly raising with NDEBUG defined (i.e. when compiled with debug=yes).
That's my preference too.
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |