[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Conversion to generic boolean
Jan Engelhardt wrote:

>>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
>>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy. I very much hope you didn't
>>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
>>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
>>>Fixing boolean checking, ex:
>>>if (bool == FALSE)
>>>if (!bool)
>>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
>>any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
>>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
>>very welcome janitorial work.
>I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy'
>(, but find the x==FALSE -> !x
>a good thing?
That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some
reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". There has been suggestions of doing:
if (x != FALSE)
if (!x == !TRUE)
but a simple "if (x)" is (in my opinion) the correct way.

Then that there is some objections booleans not being the "classical
C"-way, is another story.

>Jan Engelhardt
Richard Knutsson
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: 2006-08-28 14:13    [W:0.100 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site