Kaspar,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:42:11PM +0200, Kaspar Schleiser wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 09:43 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> >>> Does anybody object to adding this to the coding
> >>> >> conventions explicitly?
> >> > What about `size_t`?
> > +1 for size_t
>
> Well, any convention would need careful wording.
>
> ```
> for (uint32_t timeout = 1; timeout < (10LU*1000*1000); timeout *= 2) {
> if(try()) break;
> }
> ```
>
> ... cannot blindly by convention converted to size_t as loop variable.
>
> IMHO this example also answers Oleg's initial concern: sometimes int or
> unsigned int or size_t just don't work.
Thanks for pointing this out. So, it should rather go into the BCP than.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
/*
* We used to try various strange things. Let's not.
*/
linux-2.2.16/fs/buffer.c
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
