Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:32:02 +0100
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:24:42AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>>
>>>Hello
>>>
>>>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.
> 
> 
> I was kinda planning on merging it ;)
> 
> I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the
> situation.
> 
> At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how
> many private implementations of various flavours of bool.
> 
> In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single
> implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it
> makes sense.  The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot,
> convert them to open-coded 0/1.

Well... we are programming in C here, aren't we ;)

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com