lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Conversion to generic boolean
Jan Engelhardt wrote:

>>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
>>>
>>>
>>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy. I very much hope you didn't
>>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
>>
>>
>>
>>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
>>>Fixing boolean checking, ex:
>>>if (bool == FALSE)
>>>to
>>>if (!bool)
>>>
>>>
>>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
>>any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
>>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
>>very welcome janitorial work.
>>
>>
>
>I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy'
>(http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x
>a good thing?
>
>
That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some
reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". There has been suggestions of doing:
if (x != FALSE)
or
if (!x == !TRUE)
but a simple "if (x)" is (in my opinion) the correct way.
Then that there is some objections booleans not being the "classical
C"-way, is another story.

>Jan Engelhardt
>
>
Richard Knutsson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-28 14:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site