Re: Problem with stdbool.h redefining true/false even in C++

[John W. Eaton]

On 29-Aug-2012, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:

| n Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:36 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
| > On 29-Aug-2012, Paul Eggert wrote:
| >
| > | On 08/29/2012 10:00 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
| > | > Why define true, false, and bool to anything when using C++?
| > |
| > | Maybe it's for '#ifdef bool' but to be honest I'm just doing what
| > | GCC does.  Perhaps you can ask the GCC developers why they do did
| > | it that way....
| > |
| > | Anyway, I'd be surprised if Octave cares whether true, false, and bool
| > | are macros.  If it does, then it's broken on GNUish hosts anyway,
| > | right?  And if it doesn't, the gnulib patch should work as-is.
| >
| > No, I don't think Octave currently has any checks like this.
| >
| > For C++ code, I think '#ifdef bool' will be false.  So
| > '#define bool bool' switches the meaning.  Should that happen if
| > stdbool.h has been included?  I don't know.
| 
| echo -e "#include <stdbool.h> \n #ifdef bool \n echo \n#endif" | g++ -E -
| 
| # 1 "<stdin>"
| # 1 "<built-in>"
| # 1 "<command-line>"
| # 1 "<stdin>"
| # 1 "/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/include/stdbool.h" 1 3 4
| # 2 "<stdin>" 2
| 
|  echo

I understand that this is what currently happens.  I'm just wondering
if that is really the right thing.

jwe