On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:51, Kamil Dudka<kdudka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu August 6 2009 11:39:11 Hannes Eder wrote: >> >> I guess it is wise to change this in linearize.c as well. Mind sending >> >> a patch? >> > >> > The question is if we need/want to :-) It's change of the working code >> > for no real benefit. I am talking only about system-wide headers which >> > can be included anywhere. >> >> Well I see at least one benefit, a small one though. Syntax >> highlighting is somewhat confused with "true" and "false", at least >> emacs is. They appear like the constants, where in fact they are >> variables. > > I can confirm it's the same case with the vim's syntax highlighter. > >> The likelyhood to break the code by renaming this two variables is >> kinda low, no? And IHMO it was not so wise in the first place to pick >> these names. ;) > > I would contend that only two variables are affected. They are if we consider > only headers. However the situation is much worse when we concern about .c > files. The patch would be non-trivial. Please try the following command: > > $ grep --color '[^_]false[^_]' *.c $ grep --color '\bfalse\b\|\btrue\b' *.c | wc -l 91 some of them are just in comments, does not look to scary to me. If others agree that its a good idea to rename them, I can do it if you don't want to. -Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
