Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro. | Date | Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:00:26 +0930 |
| |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:33:07 -0700, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > On 04/27/2011 10:49 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:45 -0300, Thiago Farina wrote: > >> This macro is arguably more readable than its variants: > >> - !strcmp(a, b) > >> - strcmp(a, b) == 0 > > > > Actually, this was proposed way back in 2002 my Rusty and I did not see > > anyone arguing against it. I wonder why it never was incorporated back > > then? > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=103284339813100&w=2 > > > > [ added Cc's of some of those that replied to this thread ] > > > > Because !strcmp() is idiomatic C.
I proposed it because I *did* find a bug caused by my own misuse of it. Only once in 15 years as an experienced C coder, but a bug is a bug.
But why argue; #define it in your code if you want. If enough people do, we'll want to unify it.
Personally, I think it's marginal: only those with enough knowledge to avoid the trap anyway will know to use it, and YA kernel-specific piece of knowledge cancels the readability benefit.
But who knows, maybe it'll catch on elsewhere too? That would be a win.
> It doesn't matter if it is more readable *to you*... learn the language, > please.
That API is crap: insulting the user makes us look foolish.
And even experienced coders can get hit by bad APIs. The invalidity of this program shocked me recently:
#include <ctype.h> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { return isupper(argv[0][0]) ? 1 : 0; }
Thanks, Rusty.
| |