Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how
many private implementations of various flavours of bool.
In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single
implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it
makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot,
convert them to open-coded 0/1.
I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But the present situation
is nuts.
Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false)
into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision.
Ok, sounds like a good idea. But I think those who already use
boolean-type can/should be changed. Just have to stop myself of
converting "boolean" int's.
Adding a bool type
only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one
ever assign an invalid type to it.
Do not agree on this thou. Of couse it is something to strive for, but
_Bool is using the same boolean-logic as C always used:
0 is false, otherwise it is true
so blaming _Bool for using this seem a bit odd. Also, do you mean to
approve changing the return-type of all the functions who returns a
boolean but uses an integer?
-
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]
