On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:08:41AM +0100, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > ... use for() naturally instead.
>
> > - for (tmp = pathcp; ; tmp = NULL) {
> > - tok = strtok_r(tmp, ":", &key);
> > - if (!tok)
> > - break;
> > -
> > + for (tmp = pathcp; tok = strtok_r(tmp, ":", &key); tmp = NULL) {
> > /* make sure we don't repeat the search path */
> > if (inpath(tok))
> > continue;
>
> hmm, a repetitive assignment like "tmp = NULL" as the increment
> expression of the for-loop doesn't read too natural for me either.
> ;-)
Yes,
for (tok = strtok_r(pathcp, ":", &key); tok;
tok = strtok_r(NULL, ":", &key)) {
is more readable solution, 'tmp' is unnecessary. Fixed.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
