Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> > > Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
> > >      
> > Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy.  I very much hope you didn't
> > get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
> >
> >    
> >
> > > * (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
> > > Fixing boolean checking, ex:
> > > if (bool == FALSE)
> > > to
> > > if (!bool)
> > >      
> > this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
> > any boolean type.  Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
> > all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
> > very welcome janitorial work.
> >    
>
> I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy' 
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x 
> a good thing?
>  
That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some 
reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". There has been suggestions of doing:
if (x != FALSE)
or
if (!x == !TRUE)
but a simple "if (x)" is (in my opinion) the correct way.

Then that there is some objections booleans not being the "classical 
C"-way, is another story.

> Jan Engelhardt
>  
Richard Knutsson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/