From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265678AbUGGXR5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:17:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265681AbUGGXR5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:17:57 -0400 Received: from mail48.e.nsc.no ([193.213.115.48]:60652 "EHLO mail48.e.nsc.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265678AbUGGXRz (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:17:55 -0400 To: tom st denis Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Gabriel Paubert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 0xdeadbeef vs 0xdeadbeefL References: <20040707185340.42091.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> From: Harald Arnesen Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:17:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20040707185340.42091.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> (tom st denis's message of "Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87iscz9zlb.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org tom st denis writes: > Point is 0xDEADBEEFUL is just as simple to type and avoids any sort of > ambiguitity. It means unsigned long. No question about it. No having > to refer to subsection 12 of paragraph 15 of section 23 of chapter 9 to > figure that out. If people write either 0XdeadbeefUL or 0xDEADBEEFul, fine. But this is a place where character case really makes a difference in readibility- > Why people are fighting over this is beyond me. Fine, write it as > 0xDEADBEEF see what the hell I care. Honestly. Open debate or what? > > And I don't need mr. Viro coming down off his mountain saying "oh you > fail it" because I don't know some obscure typing rule that I wouldn't > come accross because *** I AM NOT LAZY ***. Hey mr. Viro what have you > contributed to the public domain lately? Anything I can harp on in > public and abuse? I think you will find that mr. Viro has contributed quite a lot :-) -- Hilsen Harald.