David Miller wrote:
From: Richard Knutsson <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100
David Miller wrote:
But this time I'll just let you know up front that I
don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear
improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and
the other changes are just whitespace changes.
Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you
use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential
bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'...
What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some)
'int')?
When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that
this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether
we "found" something?
That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do
not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits.
But is there not a good thing if also the compiler knows + names are
sometime not as clear as that one?
In new code, fine, use booleans if you want.
I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for
arguments to functions that are global in scope.
But not for function local variables in cases like this.
Oh, I see your point now. Believed it to be yet another 'booleans is not
C idiom'.
Sorry about the noise
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]
