lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch] net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c: Some small improvements
David Miller wrote:
> From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100
>
>
>> David Miller wrote:
>>
>>> But this time I'll just let you know up front that I
>>> don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear
>>> improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and
>>> the other changes are just whitespace changes.
>>>
>>>
>> Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you
>> use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential
>> bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'...
>> What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some)
>> 'int')?
>>
>
> When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that
> this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether
> we "found" something?
>
> That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do
> not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits.
>
But is there not a good thing if also the compiler knows + names are
sometime not as clear as that one?
> In new code, fine, use booleans if you want.
>
> I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for
> arguments to functions that are global in scope.
>
> But not for function local variables in cases like this.
>
Oh, I see your point now. Believed it to be yet another 'booleans is not
C idiom'.

Sorry about the noise
Richard Knutsson



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-07 16:43    [W:1.512 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site