[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060903125111.GG4884@ucw.cz>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 12:51:11 +0000
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...ightbb.com>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
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
Hi!
> > 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.)
> >
>
> Bool would not help much either unless declaration is immediately follows
> use. I like Alan Sterns proposal ofencode return value in function name
> better - actions should always return < 0/0 and predicates should always
> be boolean equivalent.
Sounds very reasonable. Even today, 90% of code follows that
convention. Perhaps adding it to codingstyle would help?
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
--
VGER BF report: H 0.254977
-
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