On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:49:46 +0000 Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 10:12:20AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:00:47 +0000 Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 06:41:12PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > I assume that when you are not used to see 'bool', 'true' and 'false'
> > > > then they hurt the eye, but when used to it it looks natural.
> > >
> > > Five words: kernel is written in C.
> > >
> > > Not in Pascal. Not in C++. Not in Algol. "When used to (something
> > > non-idiomatic in C) it becomes natural" is not a valid argument.
> >
> > C (C99) now includes booleans. Are we stuck pre-C99?
>
> TRUE and FALSE are not those. Your point is...?
Correct. So it would be better if they were spelled 'true' and 'false',
as in the C99 spec?
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
