Re: gEDA-user: PCB Patches: Use c99 bool instead of manual typedef.

[Jared Casper <jaredcasper@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ineiev <ineiev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Robert Spanton <rspanton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The key word being "if".  If and when the issue arises, then we fix it.
>
> In other words, you are willing to break it and won't fix.
>

It's not exactly one way or the other, but I believe this falls more
under the "You Aren't Gonna Need It" category than the "breaking it"
category.  Robert has already pointed out that PCB currently won't
build without a C99 compiler (because of the c++ style comments, and
I'd be willing to bet a few other things).  Why add complexity to the
code for unneeded and half-way features (the "feature" here being
non-c99 compatibility).  If you need the feature, you can add it when
you need it.

I'll grant that replacing Boolean with bool takes it further away from
being non-c99 compatible, which could be seen as "breaking it" further
if non-c99 compatibility is what you want.  However, it has plenty of
advantages, that he has pointed out, that IMHO out weigh that
negative.  In addition, if one were to aim for non-c99 compatibility,
the AC_HDR_STDBOOL way is arguably the "right way" to do it, so this
patch takes the code part of the way there anyway.

> Why not apply it to your local branch instead of PCB master?
>

Because it's annoying to maintain a local patch set, and one of the
great things about open-source software is the community contributing
back and making the code/program better.  Robert provided the script
and the git filter-branch tip to make it easier for those with local
change-sets to avoid the conflicts if this were committed to the main
repo by removing all the conflicts in one easy step.

Jared


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user