From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 29 21:32:45 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4256016A4CE; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F244A43FAF; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:32:43 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9U5WcE7038986;
	Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:32:42 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:32:37 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <20031029.223237.01027561.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: ertr1013@student.uu.se
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031029101805.GA24695@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
References: <200310290918.h9T9IiwQ095857@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20031029095700.GU84474@garage.freebsd.pl>
	<20031029101805.GA24695@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: mbr@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/rpc clnt_simple.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:32:45 -0000

In message: <20031029101805.GA24695@falcon.midgard.homeip.net>
            Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> writes:
: On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:57:00AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 01:18:44AM -0800, Martin Blapp wrote:
: > +>   Commiter:	Martin Blapp <mbr@FreeBSD.org>
: > 
: > Hi Martin!:)
: > 
: > +>   Log:
: > +>   Don't use NULL to compare against a character.
: > [...]
: > +> -	if ((nettype == NULL) || (nettype[0] == NULL))
: > +> +	if ((nettype == NULL) || (nettype[0] == 0))
: > 
: > More correct is to use '\0' for characters comparsion.
: 
: No, not *more* correct.  '\0' and 0 are both constants with type "int"
: and value zero, so they can be used interchangeably.
: For stylistic reasons one might wish to use '\0' instead of 0 for
: character comparisons, but the the C language does not make a
: difference.

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.

Warner