[gdal-dev] Should we use boolean type at the SWIG interface?

[Tamas Szekeres]

Or simply

 bool TestCapability (const char *cap) {
    return (OGR_Dr_TestCapability(self, cap) > 0);
  }


2008/7/13 Tamas Szekeres <szekerest at gmail.com>:
> Frank,
>
> I'd rather not to change the API as I've suggested before because many
> existing code may rely on it. By using this change the existing
> scripts should use the !=0 suffix in the conditions and this change
> may be confusing.
>
> What I would propose now is to change the related code according to
> the following example:
>
> bool TestCapability (const char *cap) {
>    return OGR_Dr_TestCapability(self, cap) > 0? true: false;
>  }
>
> How about this way?
>
> Tamas
>
>
>
> 2008/7/13 Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>:
>> Tamas Szekeres wrote:
>>>
>>> Devs,
>>>
>>> By using boolean type in the SWIG bindings I currently get a number if
>>> warnings when compiling the generated code:
>>>
>>> http://buildbot.osgeo.org:8500/builders/szekerest-vc71-full/builds/36/steps/csharp-make/logs/stdio
>>>
>>> Since there are no boolean value exposed by the gdal dll I suppose we
>>> can use integers instead of booleans at the wrappers as well.
>>>
>>> Any objection to relpace 'bool' with 'int' in ogr.i?
>>
>> Tamas,
>>
>> I believe it would be simplest to expose boolean results as a int.
>>
>> I see that the C API already treats the return result of TestCapability()
>> as an int.  I'm not sure why it was done differently in the swig include
>> file.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
>> warmerdam at pobox.com
>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
>>
>>
>