On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 13:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:24:32 -0500 > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > However, could we compromise and just add TRUE = true, FALSE = false to > > the enum? > > That sounds sane. But I don't recall all the details of the discussion > and perhaps I'm missing something. > > I think the whole bool/true/false thing is pretty dissatisfactory really. > Java gets this right and C cannot and will not and we end up with people > using true and false as plain old "1" and "0". Right, that's the core of my complaint ... zero is false and anything else is true ... I rather like the C isms that allow things like if (ptr) *ptr = ... If there were evidence that the C treatment of logicals as arithmeticals was causing huge problems for driver writers, then yes I'd reconsider my position ... but really any driver writer has to use bare metal arithmetical values interchangeably with logical values because that's the way device registers work. James - 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
