David Miller wrote:
quoted text
> From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100
>
>   
>> David Miller wrote:
>>     
>>> But this time I'll just let you know up front that I
>>> 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.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Is 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)'...
>> 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.
>   
But is there not a good thing if also the compiler knows + names are 
sometime not as clear as that one?
quoted text
> In new code, fine, use booleans if you want.
>
> 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.
>   
Oh, I see your point now. Believed it to be yet another 'booleans is not 
C idiom'.

Sorry about the noise
Richard Knutsson

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html