stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: _RWSTD_NO_BOOL vs _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_BOOL
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:30:45 GMT
Farid Zaripov wrote:
>   In library headers somewhere used _RWSTD_NO_BOOL and somewhere - _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_BOOL.
> The _RWSTD_NO_BOOL.is determined at configure step, but _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_BOOL - not.
At the same time
> _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_BOOL mentioned in readme file, while _RWSTD_NO_BOOL - doesn't.
> What the difference between these macros?
>  
> Shouldn't be _RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_BOOL. replaced with _RWSTD_NO_BOOL.?

The _NO_NATIVE_XXX macros (_RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_BOOL and
_RWSTD_NO_NATIVE_WCHAR_T) are #defined when the respective type isn't
a distinct type. The others are #defined when the type isn't provided
at all, not even as a typedef. We probably could drop the second kind
because we don't depend on any typedefs like that. It might even make
sense to get rid of both kinds of macros and assume that both bool
and wchar_t are always provided as distinct types. We talked about
doing a review of all these workarounds in the future (sometime after
4.2) and cleaning things up -- see this post:
   http://stdcxx.markmail.org/message/zuawhacu2cihto4y
It might make sense to add these to the list.

Martin

Mime
View raw message