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