Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-05 Thread rong deng
2012/7/5 Arun Raghavan : > On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 15:19 +0800, rong deng wrote: >> 2012/7/2 David Henningsson : >> > I don't think there is any reason to not do s/pa_bool_t/bool/g. Probably >> > the >> > reason for this might be historical, as some compilers may have supported >> > some C99 feature

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-05 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 15:19 +0800, rong deng wrote: > 2012/7/2 David Henningsson : > > I don't think there is any reason to not do s/pa_bool_t/bool/g. Probably the > > reason for this might be historical, as some compilers may have supported > > some C99 features but not all of them (Microsoft comp

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-05 Thread rong deng
2012/7/2 David Henningsson : > I don't think there is any reason to not do s/pa_bool_t/bool/g. Probably the > reason for this might be historical, as some compilers may have supported > some C99 features but not all of them (Microsoft compilers come to mind). Does pulseaudio work on Windows? If it

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-02 Thread Rémi Denis-Courmont
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:24:24 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > Does your point still stand even if it is only used internally? Yes it does. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont Sent from my collocated server ___ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list pulseaudio-discuss@li

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-02 Thread David Henningsson
On 07/02/2012 09:26 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:45:42 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: It might make sense to keep something like #ifndef HAVE_STD_BOOL typedef int bool; I sincerely don't recommend that kind of hacks. int and bool are completely different things. Th

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-02 Thread Rémi Denis-Courmont
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:45:42 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: > It might make sense to keep something like > > #ifndef HAVE_STD_BOOL > typedef int bool; I sincerely don't recommend that kind of hacks. int and bool are completely different things. The representation in memory may be different dep

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-07-02 Thread David Henningsson
On 06/30/2012 12:36 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: Hi, We handle booleans with these definitions: /* This type is not intended to be used in exported APIs! Use classic "int" there! */ #ifdef HAVE_STD_BOOL typedef bool pa_bool_t; #else typedef int pa_bool_t; #endif #ifndef FALSE #define FALSE ((pa_b

[pulseaudio-discuss] Transitioning from pa_bool_t to C99 bool

2012-06-30 Thread Tanu Kaskinen
Hi, We handle booleans with these definitions: /* This type is not intended to be used in exported APIs! Use classic "int" there! */ #ifdef HAVE_STD_BOOL typedef bool pa_bool_t; #else typedef int pa_bool_t; #endif #ifndef FALSE #define FALSE ((pa_bool_t) 0) #endif #ifndef TRUE #define TRUE (!F