Re: Conversion to generic boolean

Bernd Petrovitsch
2006-08-28T11:16:29Z

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 12:58 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >> * (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
> >> Fixing boolean checking, ex:
> >> if (bool == FALSE)
> >> to
> >> if (!bool)
> >
> >this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
> >any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
> >all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
> >very welcome janitorial work.
>
> I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy'
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x
> a good thing?

If the "if (x == FALSE) { ... }" would be a good thing, why don't we
write "if ((x == FALSE) == TRUE) { ... }"?

Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services