Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:44:42 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015843484.1eabc5@mired.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015842633.bc6005@mired.org>, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1015831171.a21ab0@mired.org>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.ORG>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing. Message-ID: <15493.62234.943657.776598@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <30203.1015411062@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <15493.61384.557931.883967@guru.mired.org> <30203.1015411062@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> types: > Ahh, but here you hit one of my pet-peeves. I hate assignments inside > conditionals. I prefer the above written as: > Anyway, if you want it spelled out the way I would want it: > > 0. No assignments in if() > > 1. In conditions, pointers should be explicitly compared against NULL: > > if (foo == NULL) > or > if (foo != NULL) > > 2. In conditions, non-interger numeric types should be explicitly compared > to zero > > if (float_t == 0.0) > > 3. Integers need not be explicitly compared to zero: > > if (foo & MASK) > not > if ((foo & MASK) != 0) I would like it spelled out. Since style(9) uses assignments in conditionals in it's examples, rule 0 probably won't fly. Rule 1 and 2 are redundant. Looking at the text in the page on -stable, I think the one-word change from boolean to "integer" would remove the ambiguity. Thank you, <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15493.62234.943657.776598>