Re: Avoid bool ?

[Jose E. Marchesi]

Hi Bruno!
    
    > * HACKING (Avoid bool): New subsection.
    
    I would vote for encouraging, not avoiding, the use of 'bool'.
    
    * Code is more readable if it uses 'bool'. The reader does not have to
      wonder "is this variable or parameter a counter or a boolean?" (This
      can be mitigated if you have a policy to name all variables of type
      bool, all parameters of type bool, and all functions of type bool
      with either a suffix '_p' or a prefix 'is_'. But do you really do so?
      And how would you enforce such a policy?)
    
    * There are portability problems [1], but they can easily be mitigated:
      Use module 'stdbool' from gnulib.
      Also, if you use 'bool' in the signature of functions exported by 
libraries,
      guaranteeing binary compatibility between different compilers on old 
platforms
      like Solaris 9 requires installing a public header file named 
'pk-stdbool.h'
      or similar. GNU Libunistring does this for 10 years; I think nowadays you
      can, in a first approximation, get away without it and just rely on the
      gnulib's and the platform's <stdbool.h>.
    
    * You want to have more contributors? Then use a present-day coding style.
      Similarly, GNU libc used to use K&R function declaration style for long
      after 2000. This hampered development, because it puts off contributors.
      Not using 'bool' is similar.
    
    Just my 2 cents.
    
As always I appreciate your views, but in this specific point we will
have to agree to disagree :)