Re: Conversion to generic boolean

Christoph Hellwig
2006-08-29T11:45:28Z

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
>
> I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But the present situation
> is nuts.

Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false)
into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision. Adding a bool type
only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one
ever assign an invalid type to it.