[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-21 00:39    [W:0.019 / U:15.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site