lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-21 00:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans