Re: [Libreoffice] BOOL conflict

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Thomas Klausner <wiz@netbsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:49:27AM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >       Urk; another reason not to use BOOL I guess :-)
> >
> >       What does your iodbcunix.h include ? I guess we might need to do some
> > hideous #define magic for the iodbcunix.h headers here: did you get a
> > solution ?
>
> Not yet.
>
> >       I might be tempted to do:
> >
> > #define BOOL IODBC_BOOL
> > #include <iodbcunix.h>
> > #undef BOOL
>
> If I only knew where it's included.
>
> >       or somesuch, if this is the only conflict.
>
> Is a general sal_Bool -> Bool, sal_True -> true, sal_False -> false
> replacement ok? Then we could remove that type...

nah. the replacement is BOOL -> bool
but that is not quite as easy as a grep/sed since thre is a joyous mix
of sal_Bool/BOOL/bool
and some sal_Bool have to stay as unsigned char for ABI compatibility.

so yes, getting rid of BOOL would solve the problem, but it is not a
quick fix...

see: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks#cleanup_.28very.29_obsolete_types

Norbert

>  Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice