Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problemwith+numberWithBool:?)

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 3 Feb 2004, at 13:44, David Ayers wrote:

> Nicola Pero wrote:
>
> > Anyway to come to the point, while I see a good reason to say in our
> > coding standards that good code should try to work with non-{NO,YES}
> > values of BOOL for compatibility with C, I don't see any sound reason 
> > to
> > contradict the NeXTstep/Apple Objective-C Language Reference and 
> > actually
> > encourage or formalize as good such a use.
> >
> > I'd propose the following -
> >
> > "A BOOL should take either the value NO or the value YES; different
> > values should not occur in well written Objective-C code.
> >
> > But to be easily compatible with code not following these standards
> > and which might mix BOOLs and C truth values (where zero is false and
> > anything non-zero is true), it's better to avoid comparing BOOL values
> > directly to YES; it's safer to compare them to NO."
> This is fine also :-)

Yes.

Does anyone really have problems with replacing cases of 'x == YES' with
isYES(x) where non YES/NO values of x are treated as YES but generate
a one-time warning?