Re: Danger: @true and @false aren't considered booleans
Re: Danger: @true and @false aren't considered booleans
- Subject: Re: Danger: @true and @false aren't considered booleans
- From: Jens Alfke <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:48:14 -0700
On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:43 PM, Roland King < email@hidden> wrote: Interesting. I think I read a discussion about something similar and seem to recall that @YES and @NO do return kCFBooleanTrue and kCFBooleanFalse. Not to suggest for one second that @true and @false shouldn't do the what you suggest, did you try @YES and @NO at all?
*blink* I didn't even know there were @YES and @NO, although it makes sense that there would be. I'll give them a try. (I wish we could get away from the ancient legacy BOOL/YES/NO stuff, since C's had native booleans for 12 years now, but I digress.)
In that case, the encoding of @true and @false is even weirder, because based on their names, they ought to be "b", the C99/C++ "bool" type.
—Jens |
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden