This will (a) stop misleading readers of the code (b) make it possible
to write code expecting an implicit !! to be applied to assignments to
booleans (c) possibly make secnet smaller or faster.
I don't expect this to produce any functional change, but I haven't
reviewed every bool_t in secnet to check.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
secnet (0.3.2~~) unstable; urgency=low
* Updates to release checklist in Makefile.in.
+ * Use C99 _Bool for bool_t.
--
typedef char *string_t;
typedef const char *cstring_t;
-typedef enum {False,True} bool_t;
+
+#define False (_Bool)0
+#define True (_Bool)1
+typedef _Bool bool_t;
#define ASSERT(x) do { if (!(x)) { fatal("assertion failed line %d file " \
__FILE__,__LINE__); } } while(0)