Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> And here's an example of this kind of effect. I'm not actually suggesting
> you apply this patch, but tell me it isn't simpler done this way?
Yes, that is a good example of simplification.
> So this is where it *does* make a difference whether we use NULL or
> config_bool, and where config_bool is simply better: it allows a config
> routine to simply never care..
But that applies only to "originally bool but now has additional
states" kind of variables.
For a variable that is never about boolean, if the original code
said:
if (!strcmp(var, "section.variable"))
foo = xstrdup(value);
it is wrong (would strdup NULL), and the correct fix would be:
if (!strcmp(var, "section.variable")) {
if (!value)
die("missing value for '%s'", var);
foo = xstrdup(value);
}
It does not make much of a difference if that "if (!value)"
becomes "if (value == config_true)". If you omit that check, as
your "user.name" example shows, foo may get an empty string or a
string "true", neither of which is what the user intended to
say.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
