>> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
How about adding bool? I don't currently find any problems with it, but
perhaps some could arise.
julia
> >> +@@
> >> +
> >> +(
> >> +*v@p < 0
> >> +|
> >> +*v@p >= 0
> >> +)
> > How do you think about to use the following SmPL wording instead?
> >
> > v@p
> > (
> > *< 0
> > |
> > *<= 0
> > )
> >
> > Regards,
> > Markus
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
