[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608210005090.32565@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:06:51 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.
>> >Mixing up these two sorts of representations is a fertile source of
>> >difficult-to-find bugs. If the C language included a strong distinction
>> >between integers and booleans then the compiler would find these mistakes
>> >for us... but it doesn't.
>>
>> Recently introduced "bool".
>
>I haven't seen the new definition of "bool", but it can't possibly provide
>a strong distinction between integers and booleans. That is, if x is
>declared as an integer rather than as a bool, the compiler won't complain
>about "if (x) ...".
Only Java will get you this distinction. I would be comfortable with a
feature where conditionals (like if() and ?:) enforce a bool showing
up in C/C++, but it's not easy to get into the mainline gcc.
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists