[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060829084714.9ae799a7.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:47:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
James.Bottomley@...elEye.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:45:02 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> 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. 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.
Not really. bool/true/false have readability advantages over int/1/0.
-
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