Re: Conversion to generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson]

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?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/