<AWT Dev> [9] Review request: new macro for conversion to jboolean

[Sergey Bylokhov]

On 3/24/14 3:11 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
> How does IS_JNI_TRUE sound?
It looks good. If nobody objects, the final version will be:

#define IS_NULL(obj) ((obj) == NULL)
#define JNU_IsNull(env,obj) ((obj) == NULL)
+#define IS_JNI_TRUE(obj) ((obj) ? JNI_TRUE : JNI_FALSE)

without additional cast.

> -- 
> best regards,
> Anthony
>
> On 3/23/2014 10:10 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 21/03/2014 15:22, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>> On 3/21/14 7:10 PM, roger riggs wrote:
>>>> The macro would just as useful (if I understand the cases) without
>>>> the cast.
>>>>
>>>> How useful is a simple definition as:
>>>>
>>>> #define IS_TRUE(obj) ((obj) ? JNI_TRUE : JNI_FALSE)
>>>>
>>>> then it would look ok to see these in sources:
>>>>
>>>>       return IS_TRUE(obj);
>>>>
>>>>       if (IS_TRUE(obj)) {....}
>>>>
>>>>       jboolean ret = IS_TRUE(obj);
>>>>
>>>> The general purpose usage matches the general C conventions for
>>>> true and false and match the JNI semantics.
>>> Actually that was my initial suggestion(name and usage).
>> I think the concern with IS_TRUE is that it's not obvious that it's a
>> jboolean. Also just the potential for it to easily collide with a macro
>> that casts to bool or (or Windows's BOOL). I can't tell from the JNI
>> spec if JNI_FALSE/JNI_TRUE are guaranteed to be defined as 0/1 but even
>> if they are then I guess there is still a concern that a jboolean is
>> defined as an unsigned 8 bits whereas a bool might not (and a Windows's
>> BOOL is an int I think). So if a macro is really needed then I think it
>> will need another name. I thought MIke's original proposal for
>> JNU_TO_JBOOLEAN wasn't too bad. I see Mike's mail about adding the cases
>> to the definitions but that isn't going to help with the cases that I
>> think you are running into where you need to go from Window's BOOL to
>> jboolean.
>>
>> -Alan.


-- 
Best regards, Sergey.