From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BckWn-0006ay-LQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:37:29 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1BckWm-0006am-70
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:37:29 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BckWm-0006aj-42
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:37:28 -0400
Received: from [80.91.224.249] (helo=main.gmane.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BckUw-0004vN-0E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:35:34 -0400
Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BckUv-000587-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:35:33 +0200
Received: from dyn-83-157-75-68.ppp.tiscali.fr ([83.157.75.68])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:35:32 +0200
Received: from gmane by dyn-83-157-75-68.ppp.tiscali.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1
	(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:35:32 +0200
From: "Charlie Gordon" <gmane@chqrlie.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:37:46 +0200
Message-ID: <cb992i$qir$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <40D6A164.2010109@petig-baender.de><20040621154440.GQ4686@kainx.org>
	<cb8vln$402$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<200406221249.36994.trunks-carracho@planet.nl>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Re: completely OT: C Q/As,
	was Re: security_20040618
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

"Sander Nagtegaal" <trunks-carracho@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:200406221249.36994.trunks-carracho@planet.nl...
> Something else...............I'm new to C++ ( but this is C code but the
same
> in C++) so don't shoot me.......

I'm just a teaser, not an executionner.

> Isn't enum { FALSE=0 , TRUE=1 } compleetly stupid anyway. I mean........is
> FALSE=0 then enum will automaticly make TRUE 1 right? So then
> enum {FALSE=0 , TRUE } ; would be better right?

Well, yes and no.  You correctly analyse that the initializer for TRUE is
redundant, as a matter of fact both initialisers are useless.
So I could have written :

enum BOOL { FALSE, TRUE };
or whatever typedef is appropriate.

But I prefer to make certain things more explicit.  I find it more readable.
Not exactly what you call "completely stupid" !

Now if you want to flame something completely stupid, look at this one :

#define FALSE 0==1
#define TRUE  1==1

Why will this fail ?

Chqrlie.