On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:47:02PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Just the notion: "your" guys was the ones to make those to boolean(_t),
Sort of, we actually inherited that type from IRIX where it is
defined in <sys/types.h>.
> and now you seem to want to patch them away because I tried to make them
> more general.
Nah, I just don't see the value either way, and see it as another
code churn exercise.
> So, is the:
> B_FALSE -> false
> B_TRUE -> true
> ok by you?
Personally, no. Thats code churn with no value IMO.
> >"int needflush;" is just as readable (some would argue moreso) as
> >"bool needflush;" and thats pretty much the level of use in XFS -
> >
> How are you sure "needflush" is, for example, not a counter?
Well, that would be named "flushcount" or some such thing. And you
would be able to tell that it was a counter by the way its used in
the surrounding code.
This discussion really isn't going anywhere useful; I think you need
to accept that not everyone sees value in a boolean type. :)
cheers.
--
Nathan
-
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]
