On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 01:33 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:It isn't a pretty sight, but I think it is more important to let the "user" know what kind of value to expect from a function/variable.
Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:42 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:That is what I am trying to do, making bool as accepted as any other integer. No more, no less.
Just why is it, that when there is a change to make locally defined booleans into a more generic one, it is converted into integers? ;)I just see this as an opportunity to make jfs more closely fit the
coding style of the mainline kernel.
Okay. My initial impression is that you were just offended by the
ugliness of having so many different definitions of true, false, and
To 0/1 or false/true?A root-beer maybe?I can understand if authors disprove making an integer into a boolean, but here it already were booleans.I could be persuaded to leave the declarations as boolean_t or even
But hey, you are the maintainer ;)
making them bool, but right now I'm leaning toward making them int for
What do you say, can you hold on it for a while (can't be urgent, can it?) and see how the conversion go. Will take time for it during this week(end) and if the result is that almost no maintainer wants it, then...
Just seem strange to having a boolean function but declaring it integer, for (in my knowledge) no reason.
Sounds good to me. I think I'll go ahead and kill the use of TRUE and
FALSE, but hold off on the type change for now.