Re: Conversion to generic boolean

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

Christoph Hellwig wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>  
>
>>At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how
>>many private implementations of various flavours of bool.
>>
>>In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single
>>implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it
>>makes sense.  The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot,
>>convert them to open-coded 0/1.
>>
>>I'm not particularly fussed either way, really.  But the present situation
>>is nuts.
>>    
>>
>
>Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false)
>into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision.
>
Ok, sounds like a good idea. But I think those who already use 
boolean-type can/should be changed. Just have to stop myself of 
converting "boolean" int's.

>                                                        Adding a bool type
>only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one
>ever assign an invalid type to it.
>  
>
Do not agree on this thou. Of couse it is something to strive for, but 
_Bool is using the same boolean-logic as C always used:
0 is false, otherwise it is true
so blaming _Bool for using this seem a bit odd. Also, do you mean to 
approve changing the return-type of all the functions who returns a 
boolean but uses an integer?