> On 29-Jul-99 Garst R. Reese wrote:
> >> 111a112
> >> > static bool color_visual; // is the visual color?
> >> 389a391,396
> >> > if ( (vi->c_class == StaticColor) ||
> >> > (vi->c_class == PseudoColor) ||
> >> > (vi->c_class == TrueColor) ||
> >> > (vi->c_class == DirectColor) ) color_visual = true;
> >> > else
> >> > color_visual = false;
> >> 621c628
> >> < if (gs_color && !gs_gray)
> >> ---
> >> > if (color_visual)
> > How about:
> > color_visual = ( (vi->c_class == StaticColor) ||
> > (vi->c_class == PseudoColor) ||
> > (vi->c_class == TrueColor) ||
> > (vi->c_class == DirectColor) );
> > or
> > color_visual = ( vi->c_class == (StaticColor
> > ||PseudoColor ||TrueColor || DirectColor) );
> >
> > excuse me if this is really dumb.
>
> Ohh, I see some other purists :) For the if ... then ... else ... expression
> of Dan I would have got a bunch of - points in my university tests :) You'll
> learn when getting bad votes :)
If I may explain what I was thinking:
1) the current code always uses true and false, not 1 and 0, so
I chose to keep the convention of the original author
2) If somebody decided to redefine true to 0 and false to 1,
then I think my code would be the more robust.
Actually, I don't even know where true and false are defined. I'm
guessing they are in some header file somewhere which somebody could
conceivably change. Is this right?
Woops. In this case, I guess I should have used:
if (color_visual == true)
I'm still learning here. Which way is better?
Dan
