Re: [PATCH] r1986 broke FAT detection

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:44:14PM +0100, Javier Martín wrote:
> > 
> You're welcome. I see that nevertheless the "0 != " comparisons were
> substituted for standard C int-to-bool-conversion-based comparisons.
> Maybe people should know the signature _and_ semantic contract of
> strncmp, but frequently they don't (I had to look it up in the
> handbook), and while the code that was committed may look like an
> "obvious error" to a wanderer (because, of course, comparison functions
> should return a semantic-bool, shouldn't they?), the version with the
> explicit "0 != " checks at least looks like it was written like that _on
> purpose_ (and the actual binary cost should be zero with any sensible
> compiler), thus making future developers on bug-fixing quests at least
> scratch their heads before proposing the change to the "if (!strncmp)"
> error. So, keeping the coding style consistent is important, but I think
> a balance with readability is in order. Thus, you are the maintainers
> and you know what you're doing, but I think it's not worth to keep the
> coding style so strict as to become confusing.

I think you're confusing things.  C has no boolean type.  I know strcmp
gives more info than just a semantic boolean, but in this case it's not
interesting to us.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."