lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro.
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-28 13:07    [W:0.112 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site