From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>But is there not a good thing if also the compiler knows + names are sometime not as clear as that one?
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100
David Miller wrote:
But this time I'll just let you know up front that IIs it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'...
don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear
improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and
the other changes are just whitespace changes.
What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some) 'int')?
When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that
this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether
we "found" something?
That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do
not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits.
In new code, fine, use booleans if you want.Oh, I see your point now. Believed it to be yet another 'booleans is not C idiom'.
I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for
arguments to functions that are global in scope.
But not for function local variables in cases like this.