Re: Booleans

[Jarek Czekalski]

W dniu 2013-12-16 00:03, Paul Eggert pisze:
> I did it primarily because Stefan suggested that I
> do so, while changing int to bool etc.

Was it a private discussion? I can't remember seeing that. I hope it was 
not, see "Avoid private discussions". [1]

> > It would be an odd style to use '0' for false
> > preprocessor expressions, while using 'false' for false
> > expressions everywhere else.

For a c programmer while (1) is extremely readable and obvious, and 
short. While we are in c and not in Python or Lisp, I would follow the c 
convention. In places like this one, where introducing bool gives no 
benefits.

> >should have been a separate commit, as
> >it is not a mechanical replacement, far from it.
> It was a judgment call.  Perhaps I should have separated it
> out, though it's no big deal.  It was a case of an int value
> being used as a boolean with values 0 and -1.

I think it is a deal worth a while. It's very hard to locate a change in 
a commit that is 221k long. Such long commits should be limited to 
mechanical changes. Putting several different changes in such a long 
commit makes it impossible to review. Now it's time for the most 
important question: do you want your revisions to be reviewed? See 
"Practice Conspicuous Code Review" [2].

Why this single change should be a separate commit? I would justify it 
being a change of the interface of an internal library. An advanced 
Emacs user may have more calls to this internal api. Would he expect 
that the interface was changed seeing a label "Use bool for boolean" in 
the commit message? I could even give reasons for not changing at all 
this interface, but maybe it's not worth arguing.

Thanks
Jarek

[1] http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#avoid-private-discussions
[2] http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#code-review