X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Message-ID: <3FFE97BE.4CA94BA3@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 06:59:58 -0500 From: CBFalconer Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: stdbool.h and complex.h References: <3FFCF1F4 DOT B86AC9DA AT yahoo DOT com> <3FFDEB2F DOT F9560613 AT yahoo DOT com> <9003-Fri09Jan2004105245+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: CBFalconer > > > > On reconsideration I think you and Eli are right. However I would > > separate out the strict part. The thing being guarded against is > > the use of _Bool below C99, because it doesn't exist. > > Sorry, I don't think I understand what you are asking for. Could you > elaborate, or, better yet, show us the modified stdbool.h that you > would like to see? > > If you are afraid of _Bool being injected into the namespace, then > this is not a problem, since ANSI C says symbols which begin with an > underscore and an upper-case letter are reserved for the > implementation, and so cannot possibly conflict with user's symbols. Injecting _Bool is no problem, using it (under C90) is. So the only problem that can arise is not having the underlying C99 abilities. Therefore the proposed stdbool.h is fine, with the solitary exception of the "|| STRICT_ANSI" term. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address!