On Tuesday 29 August 2006 01:58, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > >> I was kinda planning on merging it ;) > >> > >> I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the > >> situation. > >> > >> 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. > > > > Well... we are programming in C here, aren't we ;) > > I like it for the annotation we get. > > int fluff; > if(fluff == 0) > > This does not tell if fluff is an integer or a boolean (that is, what the > programmer intended to do -- not the 'int' the compiler sees). > If it had been if(!fluff), it would give a hint, but a lot of places also have > !x where x really is intended to be an integer (and should have been x==0 or > y==NULL resp.) > Bool would not help much either unless declaration is immediately follows use. I like Alan Sterns proposal ofencode return value in function name better - actions should always return < 0/0 and predicates should always be boolean equivalent. -- Dmitry - 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
