[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFC: booleans and the kernel (Timothy Covell)  wrote on 26.01.02 in <>:

> On Friday 25 January 2002 00:36, Kai Henningsen wrote:

> > We're talking about a specific language feature, and that feature isn't
> > what you seem to be thinking it is. It does not change anything you can do
> > with ints.
> I know, I was talking about typographical errors such as:
> int x=0;
> if ( x = 1 )
> or
> char x;
> if ( x )
> which did not product the desired results. My thought was to encourage the
> use of booleans instead of ints in these kinds of conditionals. I thought

And if you changed the int and/or the char into bool, this would
accomplish exactly nothing. A compiler can warn about assignments in
conditions or uninitialized variables, and gcc does it already (and has
done so since a long time); why you think this has anything to do with
bool seems to be completely unclear to everyone but you.

> admits that there are benefits too. But, I think it amazing that I'm being
> told that I'm an idiot when even the language's author agrees with me
> on my concerns about C.

Of course, that is again not what is happening. You either *weren't*
talking about Richie's concerns, or else you were making an excellent
effort of keeping that fact secret from the rest of us.

What you *were* saying is that you think bool would help get warnings that
you *already* get and that bool has absolutely no relevance to. I didn't
exactly call you an idiot for that, but that is certainly the impression
you left.

MfG Kai
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.212 / U:4.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site