Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-02-11 09:51:26 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I have never been quite clear on what you think is going to cause
>> stdbool.h inclusions to become more common.
> Primarily because it's finally starting to be supported across the
> board, thanks to MS finally catching up.
There are exactly 0 references to stdbool in our source tree. The
only way it'd get pulled in is if some other system header does so.
(Which seems possible, admittedly. I'm not sure whether the C
standard allows or forbids such things.)
It's worth worrying also about extensions that might want to include
stdbool.h --- anything in our own headers that would conflict would
be a problem. But I'm unconvinced that we need to make our .c files
prepared for stdbool.h to be #included in them. By that argument,
any random symbol in any system header in any platform on the planet
is a hazard to us.
regards, tom lane
