On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:45:02 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how > > many private implementations of various flavours of bool. > > > > In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single > > implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it > > makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot, > > convert them to open-coded 0/1. > > > > I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But the present situation > > is nuts. > > Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false) > into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision. Adding a bool type > only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one > ever assign an invalid type to it. Not really. bool/true/false have readability advantages over int/1/0. - 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
