Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:29:51 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:

> nah, the only place that using symbolic names for true and false
> is a problem is when someone #defines or enums them bassackwards.

Or goes off the deep end and does something like:

enum bool = {false, true, unknown};

http://thedailywtf.com/forums/47844/ShowPost.aspx
http://thedailywtf.com/forums/61792/ShowPost.aspx

Gaak.  Unfortunately, they might someday try to write kernel code. ;)

Attachment: pgp2z0YFs6qsU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
    • From: "Joshua Hudson" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
    • From: "Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Proposed manpage additions for ptrace(2)
• Next by Date: Re: Kernel Bug while trying to mount nfs share
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]