Re: [patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE

Al Viro
2006-03-16T17:11:27Z

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:05:05AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
> > And that's supposed to be an argument in favour of that crap?
>
> So an honest, if stupid, question: How is the TRUE/FALSE stuff any
> different than the case of using a NULL when assigning a zero to a
> pointer is explicitly required to have the same effect? They both
> seem to further the goal of better self-documenting code.

NULL is idiomatic in C. TRUE and FALSE are definitely not. Again,
if you want Bournegol, you know where to find it. Grab the v7 sh
and enjoy "self-documenting" code.