Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:15:48 -0700 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Tony Finch <fanf@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/uudecode uudecode.c Message-ID: <20020911101548.A46043@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20020911205548.E1092-100000@gamplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:01:50PM %2B1000 References: <20020910145812.B78992@FreeBSD.org> <20020911205548.E1092-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> [ Data: 2002-09-11 ] [ Subjecte: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/uudecode uudecode.c ] > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > > > * De: Tony Finch <fanf@FreeBSD.org> [ Data: 2002-09-10 ] > > > ... > > > Log: > > > Style: Don't treat pointers as booleans. > > > > Do we have a firm style(9) ruling on that? There's like two cases I know > > of where it's justified, both are code that return pointers, and use 0 / false > > internally. I loathe if(ptr) almost as much as if(foo &bitmask) and if(!strcmp) > > What's wrong with "if(foo &bitmask)" (except for its whitespace of course)? > It is a multi-boolean test if bitmask is essentially an array of booleans. > It seems to be Normal KNF too. But !(foo & bitmask) seems to be abNormal -- > (foo & bitmask) == 0 seems to be normal. If you have bit overlap, you may get false positive/negative, though sometimes that may be what is intended. -- Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020911101548.A46043>