On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:50:04AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote: > BTW, with a little C algebra: > const unsigned int val = value ? 0x1 << WM5100_GP1_LVL_SHIFT : 0; > const unsigned int val = (value ? 0x1 : 0) << WM5100_GP1_LVL_SHIFT; > const unsigned int val = (!!value) << WM5100_GP1_LVL_SHIFT; // definition > of ! operator > And now we're back to where we started, so I don't really see why this is > even necessary. The semantics of the ! operator will be changed in a > future C version? Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
