[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608290754550.952@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:58:57 +0200 (MEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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
>> I was kinda planning on merging it ;)
>>
>> I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the
>> situation.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well... we are programming in C here, aren't we ;)
I like it for the annotation we get.
int fluff;
if(fluff == 0)
This does not tell if fluff is an integer or a boolean (that is, what the
programmer intended to do -- not the 'int' the compiler sees).
If it had been if(!fluff), it would give a hint, but a lot of places also have
!x where x really is intended to be an integer (and should have been x==0 or
y==NULL resp.)
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