Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>]

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