Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:36:52 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc. |
| |
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> Recently introduced "bool". > > > >I haven't seen the new definition of "bool", but it can't possibly provide > >a strong distinction between integers and booleans. That is, if x is > >declared as an integer rather than as a bool, the compiler won't complain > >about "if (x) ...". > > Only Java will get you this distinction.
Not true. It exists in Ruby. :-)
> I would be comfortable with a > feature where conditionals (like if() and ?:) enforce a bool showing > up in C/C++, but it's not easy to get into the mainline gcc.
I think relying on an agreed-upon convention is the best we can do.
Alan Stern
- 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/
| |