From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 30 11:59:48 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6982716A4CE; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au
	(c211-30-75-229.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.75.229])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7831143FBF; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:59:46 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au
	[127.0.0.1])h9UJxXf1027596;	Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:59:34 +1100 (EST)
	(envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au)
Received: (from jeremyp@localhost)h9UJxX5G027595;
	Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:59:33 +1100 (EST)	(envelope-from jeremyp)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:59:33 +1100
From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20031030195933.GB1649@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
References: <200310290918.h9T9IiwQ095857@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20031029095700.GU84474@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<20031029101805.GA24695@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
	<20031029.223237.01027561.imp@bsdimp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031029.223237.01027561.imp@bsdimp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org
cc: src-committers@freebsd.org
cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/rpc clnt_simple.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:59:48 -0000

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:32:37PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>Yes.  More correct.  For the same reason that
>
>      while (foo) {
>      ...
>      }
>
>is more correct than:
>
>top:
>	if (foo) goto out;
>	...
>	goto top;
>out:
>
>In that it is the more appropriate construct to use in the context.
>Even though they are both guaranteed to be the same, one is more
>correct than the other.

Just to nit-pick but the two conditional tests are complements.  One
needs a '!' to make them the same.

Peter