From: Peter Williams <peterw@aurema.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
root@chaos.analogic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Godbole,
Amarendra (GE Consumer & Industrial)" <Amarendra.Godbole@ge.com>,
"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: (0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:36:02 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <405016E2.4030208@aurema.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040311065041.GB14537@alpha.home.local>
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:36:22PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>And while "0 == foo" may be logically the same thing as "foo == 0", the
>>fact is, the latter is what people are used to seeing. And by being used
>>to seeing it, they have an easier time thinking about it.
>>
>>As a result, using the former just tends to increase peoples confusion by
>>making code harder to read, which in turn tends to increase the chance of
>>bugs.
>
>
> I have a friend who constantly uses it, and his code is unreadable, because
> sometimes, a "0 == xxx" becomes "0 <= xxx" or "0 >= xxx" which is difficult
> to understand. Thinking that xxx is negative because it's written on the
> right side of a >= is complicated. And the worst he does is when he uses
> functions :
>
> if (0 < strcmp(a, "xxx")) ...
> if (sizeof(t) > read(fd, t, sizeof(t)) ...
>
> I have already helped him track bugs in his programs, and some of them were
> just related to this usage, because nobody's brain can understand these
> constructions immediately without thinking a bit. So I'm all against this
> sort of thing.
One final note. I agree with all the statements of how awkward and
unnatural the back to front boolean expressions look but I had adopted
this technique (for myself) as a means of overcoming design shortcomings
in the C language. I intend to keep doing it in my private code (as
it's saved my bacon a number of times) but will conform to Linus's
standards for any contributions/patches I submit for kernel code (just
as I would conform for any other person's standards if I were to
contribute to their work). In the long run, consistency in a body of
code greatly enhances its readability.
Peace?
Peter
--
Dr Peter Williams, Chief Scientist peterw@aurema.com
Aurema Pty Limited Tel:+61 2 9698 2322
PO Box 305, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012, Australia Fax:+61 2 9699 9174
79 Myrtle Street, Chippendale NSW 2008, Australia http://www.aurema.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-11 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-10 6:16 (0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0) Godbole, Amarendra (GE Consumer & Industrial)
2004-03-10 10:34 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2004-03-10 18:02 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-03-10 18:33 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-10 18:50 ` [OT] " David Ford
2004-03-10 19:06 ` Roland Dreier
2004-03-10 19:26 ` David Ford
2004-03-10 21:26 ` Roland Dreier
2004-03-10 22:03 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-03-11 23:12 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-03-10 19:23 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-10 19:31 ` David Ford
2004-03-10 23:20 ` Frank v Waveren
2004-03-10 23:33 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-03-11 2:14 ` David Ford
2004-03-11 15:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-03-10 23:10 ` Peter Williams
2004-03-10 21:29 ` viro
2004-03-10 22:20 ` David Ford
2004-03-10 22:42 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-11 0:33 ` Micha Feigin
2004-03-11 10:47 ` Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-03-10 22:49 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-03-10 23:14 ` David Ford
2004-03-10 23:28 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-03-10 23:47 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-03-10 21:34 ` Matthew Garrett
2004-03-10 23:00 ` Peter Williams
2004-03-11 0:16 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-03-11 2:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-03-11 3:08 ` Peter Williams
2004-03-11 3:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-03-11 4:40 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-03-11 9:48 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-03-11 10:29 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-03-11 15:18 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-03-11 17:42 ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-03-11 23:05 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-03-11 6:50 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-03-11 7:36 ` Peter Williams [this message]
2004-03-11 15:03 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-03-11 15:22 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-03-11 15:48 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-03-11 4:04 Godbole, Amarendra (GE Consumer & Industrial)
[not found] <1y5oc-8cr-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1ygjH-3LE-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1ygMH-4eu-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1yzZ9-1qq-43@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1yAs0-1P6-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1yALu-288-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-03-11 16:41 ` Chip Salzenberg
[not found] <1ypPV-5N2-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-03-11 16:44 ` Chip Salzenberg
2004-03-11 23:57 ` Peter Williams
2004-03-12 1:51 ` Chris Johns
2004-03-12 12:21 ` Richard B. Johnson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=405016E2.4030208@aurema.com \
--to=peterw@aurema.com \
--cc=Amarendra.Godbole@ge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=root@chaos.analogic.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=willy@w.ods.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox