On 2017-04-05 00:58:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> >> Any objections?
>
> > I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a
> > is the right way to address the stdbool issue,
>
> I will? [ looks ... ] Yup, you're right.
>
> I doubt that works at all, TBH. What I'd expect to happen with a
> typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool,
> because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing
> so again. It'd make sense to me to do
>
> + #ifdef bool
> + #undef bool
> + #endif
>
> to get rid of the macro definition of bool that stdbool.h is
> supposed to provide. But there should be no reason to declare
> our typedef a second time.
> Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about
> redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros. But those would
> likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors.
I argued before that we should migrate to stdbool.h by default, because
it's only going to get more common. We already do so in a way for c++
compilers...
- Andres
