Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:10:00 +0200 | From | Richard Knutsson <> | Subject | Re: Conversion to generic boolean |
| |
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >>At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how >>many private implementations of various flavours of bool. >> >>In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single >>implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it >>makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot, >>convert them to open-coded 0/1. >> >>I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But the present situation >>is nuts. >> >> > >Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false) >into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision. > Ok, sounds like a good idea. But I think those who already use boolean-type can/should be changed. Just have to stop myself of converting "boolean" int's.
> Adding a bool type >only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one >ever assign an invalid type to it. > > Do not agree on this thou. Of couse it is something to strive for, but _Bool is using the same boolean-logic as C always used: 0 is false, otherwise it is true so blaming _Bool for using this seem a bit odd. Also, do you mean to approve changing the return-type of all the functions who returns a boolean but uses an integer?
- 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/
| |