[sldev] BOOL patch, and test results.

[Alan Grimes]

> Any comprehensive BOOL-->bool replacement would produce a patch
> of such a magnitude that would generate a large number of merge
> conflicts throughout the myriad of branches we're juggling internally,
> and the conflicts would smolder over several weeks, or even months.
> I don't know of any LL developer who would want to push such a
> monster through the system, with little to show for it but
> some slightly prettier code.  I think a more likely campaign
> for change  would be for the sldev crowd to push
> the LL devs to reach a consensus on a change to the coding
> standard, and then start a gradual transition to bools -- all
> new code should use bool's and old code is converted file by
> file, in little deliverable chunks.

Interesting.

A smaller subset of the monster boolpatch I posted the other day is a
TRUE/FALSE patch.

It simply removes the declarations of TRUE and FALSE and replaces them
with their C++ (and even C!) standard counterparts... There are only a
handful of "gotchas" with this change and those are easy to find and fix.

-- 
Opera: Sing it loud! :o(  )>-<