Dear Tabi Timur-B04825,
In message 6AE080B68D46FC4BA2D2769E68D765B70820541F@039-SN2MPN1-023.039d.mgd.msft.net you wrote:
This seems broken to me. Can we rather try8 and get rid of all this "bool" stuff instead? It's just obfuscating the code...
Like Scott said, we sometimes copy code from Linux that uses 'bool', so it's simpler if we just retain this commonly-used type. If it's part of the language, how is it obfuscating? Maybe the Linux
_Bool has been introduced very late to any C standard, and you can still see this from the ugly, unnatural name.
It is my personal firm conviction that the people pushed it were not the ones who have been using C right from the beginning, say from the times of Unix v6 or so.
IMHO it is much better to rely on '0' meaning "false" and anything else meaning "true" instead of insisting on one specific value of "true". Yes, people claim the code is easier to read and understand, but these are the same people who claim drop-down menues are easier to work wit than a CLI. And I've seen more than one case where bugs were caused by using "proper bool types" like this:
i = 0; j = 0; k = 2;
if ((i | j | k) == true) ...
developers should have used _Bool instead of bool, but they didn't, and so here we are.
Well, I raised my concerns, but I do not intend to formally NAK it. In any case, I insist on using the standard header file.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk