Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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)
to
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' (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), 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)
or
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 [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]
  Powered by Linux