On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:28:08 -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > On 11/18/19 10:53 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 14:47:03 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > > On 11/18/19 2:27 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > > > > I believe it was John who persuaded us to use explicit integer comparison > > > for integer variables. The idea is that it's clear from the check itself if > > > we are comparing integers or pointers. And I agree with him - in my new code > > > I always use 'if (x > 0)' or 'if (x != 0)' instead of 'if (x)' or 'if (!x)'. > > > I'll start paying more attention to it in the code I'll be writing too. > > > > > > We also encourage it officially in our coding style: > > > > https://libvirt.org/hacking.html#conditions > > > > I wasn't aware that (hasFoos == true) was a valid/encouraged format. I took flak > in QEMU doing these kind of things and got used to do the short format whenever > possible. Interesting. Note that if (hasFoos) is also valid without any preference towards one or the other so the short form is good and in most cases not confusing. What's specifically discouraged is testing integers without a comparison operator as in such case it obscures that there might be a value of significance other than the usual boolean cases NULL, !NULL in case of pointers of false, true in case of booleans.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
