Use of 'bool' in SpiderMonkey code

[Jim Blandy-3]

If we're migrating towards bool/true/false over JSBool/JS_TRUE/JS_FALSE,
what's our policy towards SpiderMonkey headers #included into C code?
Should they continue to use JSBool?  #include <stdbool.h>, even though
that introduces a definition for 'bool' into client code?

C99 has a _Bool built-in type, which allows new headers to use the type
without introducing definitions for 'bool' into old code, because _Bool
isn't defined in C++; defining it ourselves seems like asking for more
trouble.

My personal preference would be to simply #include <stdbool.h> in
jstypes.h if !defined(__cplusplus), use bool freely, and have users
cope.  We have to leave the old stuff behind eventually.

I'll update the style guides at:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/JavaScript:SpiderMonkey:C%2B%2B_Coding_Style
https://wiki.mozilla.org/JavaScript:SpiderMonkey:C_Coding_Style
to reflect the conclusions.
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
dev-tech-js-engine@...
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine

[Jim Blandy-3]

On 10/28/2009 12:51 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> If we're migrating towards bool/true/false over JSBool/JS_TRUE/JS_FALSE,
> what's our policy towards SpiderMonkey headers #included into C code?
> Should they continue to use JSBool? #include <stdbool.h>, even though
> that introduces a definition for 'bool' into client code?

Just to be clear: deleting JS_TRUE/JS_FALSE/JSBool from the API has
never been on the table.  Client code can continue to use those.

Rather, I'd gotten comments on patches asking me to use the bool stuff
instead of the JSBool stuff.  For things visible only within SM, that's
fine.  But I want to understand the boundary cases --- specifically,
what happens to the types in the public API, and semi-public APIs like
jsdbgapi.h?
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
dev-tech-js-engine@...
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine

[Jason Orendorff-2]

On 10/28/2009 04:54 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:

> On 10/28/2009 12:51 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
>> If we're migrating towards bool/true/false over JSBool/JS_TRUE/JS_FALSE,
>> what's our policy towards SpiderMonkey headers #included into C code?
>> Should they continue to use JSBool? #include <stdbool.h>, even though
>> that introduces a definition for 'bool' into client code?
>
> Just to be clear: deleting JS_TRUE/JS_FALSE/JSBool from the API has
> never been on the table. Client code can continue to use those.
>
> Rather, I'd gotten comments on patches asking me to use the bool stuff
> instead of the JSBool stuff. For things visible only within SM, that's
> fine. But I want to understand the boundary cases --- specifically, what
> happens to the types in the public API, and semi-public APIs like
> jsdbgapi.h?

My understanding was that the public and existing "friend" APIs won't
change, and new APIs in header files included from C (public and
semi-public) should continue to use JSBool.

In SM's own .cpp files, JS_TRUE and JS_FALSE basically shouldn't be used
anymore.

-j
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine mailing list
dev-tech-js-engine@...
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine