Allow <forceUppercase/> as shortcut for <forceUppercase>true</forceUppercase> ?

[Lolonois]

Would it be okay to have "tagging" boolean XML-elements in themes ?

Currently it is needed to have a 1, t[rue], y[es] to enable a boolean switch in the themes:

e.g. <forceUppercase>1</forceUppercase> which is a redundant syntax in context of an boolean switch.

My suggestion woudl be to allow also <forceUppercase/> to be evaluated to true.
If such an boolean element is not present it will evalated to its default nevertheless.

This line can be added with an first == '\x00' || to allow tagging boolean XML elements.

Will this change create regressions upstream?

[IanDaemon]

@lolonois I'm not disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand your intent. Is your argument that: three states (1, T, Y) returning affirmative is redundant, therefore we should have four (1, T, Y, existence)? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand.

[mitu]

@lolonois said in Allow <forceUppercase/> as shortcut for <forceUppercase>true</forceUppercase> ?:

e.g. <forceUppercase>1</forceUppercase> which is a redundant syntax in context of an boolean switch.

It's not redundant if you view it as a question/option value rather than an affirmation (forceUppercase?: 1/0, true/false). IMHO should be left as is.

[Lolonois]

Thanks both.

This XML element is not mandatory, so it can be left out and it will evaluated to false if a theme checks this value. If it is there it has to be explicitly set 1 (or semantically equivalent) to be effective. This is why I perceive it as redundant and picked the term.

Never mind, let's keep the implementation as-is.