Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:17:32 +0200 | From | Richard Knutsson <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |