Skip to content

feat: deprecate boolean typedef in favor of bool#265

Closed
Aymane-ST wants to merge 1 commit intoarduino:masterfrom
Aymane-ST:pr/boolean-deprecate
Closed

feat: deprecate boolean typedef in favor of bool#265
Aymane-ST wants to merge 1 commit intoarduino:masterfrom
Aymane-ST:pr/boolean-deprecate

Conversation

@Aymane-ST
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

Deprecate the legacy boolean typedef in favor of standard C++ bool, while keeping it available for backward compatibility.

Why

boolean is a historical Arduino alias. In modern C++, bool is the standard and preferred type.

Marking boolean as deprecated:

  • preserves compatibility,
  • keeps old code building,
  • encourages gradual migration

Compatibility

This is a non-breaking change:

  • boolean remains available,
  • it is still an alias of bool,
  • existing code should continue to compile,
  • users may now see a deprecation warning when using boolean.

Ref: #242

Ref: arduino#242

Signed-off-by: Aymane Bahssain <aymane.bahssain@st.com>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.53%. Comparing base (cd91833) to head (af606a0).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #265   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.53%   95.53%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        1076     1076           
=======================================
  Hits         1028     1028           
  Misses         48       48           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@per1234 per1234 self-assigned this Apr 25, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@per1234 per1234 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your pull requests @Aymane-ST! I will close this as a duplicate of the prior #242.

It is true that this PR is slightly higher quality in that it does not contain the out of scope trailing whitespace trimming present in #242. However, those changes are minimal, and beneficial in their own right, and no maintainer requested their removal. So I don't think the presence of those out of scope changes justifies superseding #242 with this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants