Foundation BOOLEAN

[Slion]

HidD_GetProductString return value is generated as that Foundation.BOOLEAN class. Is there an elegant way to check its value? I tried getting TRUE and FALSE to generate but I don't think that works.

I ended up declaring something like that, still somewhat ugly though:

namespace Windows.Win32
{
    class K
    {
        public static readonly Foundation.BOOLEAN TRUE = new Foundation.BOOLEAN(1);
        public static readonly Foundation.BOOLEAN FALSE = new Foundation.BOOLEAN(0);
    }
}

[AArnott]

Oh, that's interesting. We have both BOOL and BOOLEAN types (of different lengths) in the metadata. We already take steps in CsWin32 to make BOOL feel as much like bool as possible. We can do the same for BOOLEAN.

[Slion]

Thanks for the quick turnaround.

[RussKie]

@AArnott it'd be great to have BOOL.TRUE and BOOL.FALSE and/or having some helper methods like bool IsTrue() and bool IsFalse() though, as it could help with the clarity. It's not obvious that BOOL is convertable to bool (C#), and I can totally see how consumers would write something like:

if (PInvoke.ReturnBOOL() == new BOOL(true)) { ... }

or - which is equally unpleasant (e.g. dotnet/winforms#7444 (comment)):

if (PInvoke.ReturnBOOL() == true) { ... }

The same applies to BOOLEAN type.

[AArnott]

Adding more public APIs because people don't know they don't need them feels like replacing bad syntax with more bad syntax. I don't know why someone would ever write == true, as that is never required for any C# type. I can imagine your first example though of == new BOOL(true), though I haven't seen that in the wild.

I think what I'd rather do is start adding analyzers to CsWin32 and start flagging when people write syntax like that to advise them that they needn't do so. What do you think, @RussKie?

[RussKie]

adding analyzers to CsWin32 and start flagging when people write syntax like that to advise them that they needn't do so.

Sounds like a great idea :)

[AArnott]

Filed #607 to track.