Re: Conversion to generic boolean

Richard Knutsson
2006-08-28T12:10:40Z

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?
>
>
That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some
reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". There has been suggestions of doing:
if (x != FALSE)
or
if (!x == !TRUE)
but a simple "if (x)" is (in my opinion) the correct way.

Then that there is some objections booleans not being the "classical
C"-way, is another story.

>Jan Engelhardt
>
>
Richard Knutsson