Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:39:56 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015843484.1eabc5@mired.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing. Message-ID: <p0510150fb8ac11d15f26@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <15493.62234.943657.776598@guru.mired.org> References: <15493.61384.557931.883967@guru.mired.org> <30203.1015411062@critter.freebsd.dk> <15493.62234.943657.776598@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In one message,
At 12:52 AM -0800 3/6/02, David O'Brien wrote:
>I don't think it is clarifying a rule. I think it is in fact adding
>a rule. You are extrapolating too much I think. All the rule is
>trying to prevent is "if (!strcmp(a,b))" which when read is extremely
>wrong of that is actually happening.
In a later message (not directly replying to the above),
At 4:44 AM -0600 3/6/02, Mike Meyer wrote:
>Looking at the text in the page on -stable, I think the one-word
>change from boolean to "integer" would remove the ambiguity.
If we change boolean to integer, then the proposed rule will not
prevent "if (!strcmp(a,b))" , because strcmp() *does* return an
integer value. Or am I missing something here?
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0510150fb8ac11d15f26>