On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:17 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > >>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for: > >>> > >>> > >>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy. I very much hope you didn't > >>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged. > >> > >> > >> > >>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone) > >>>Fixing boolean checking, ex: > >>>if (bool == FALSE) > >>>to > >>>if (!bool) > >>> > >>> > >>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing > >>any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting > >>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be > >>very welcome janitorial work. > >> > >> > > > >I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy' > >(http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x > >a good thing? > > > > > That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some > reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be eliminated.) -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
