On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:04:29 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:40:01AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > - Here: > > > > + if (0 == memcmp(&heci_wd_guid, > > > > we boringly prefer "if (foo == 0)" rather than "if (0 == foo)". (lots > > of places). > > But 0 == blah is safer. If you accidentally do 0 = blah the compiler > will tell you. If you do 'if (blah = 0)' then compiler will tell you too. To all intents and purposes this invalidates the reasons for doing `if (0 == blah)'. > Just because people have always done it the other way > around doesn't make it the right way to do it. I have noticed many > people have started to realize this in the last few years. > > It is also much clearer that you are comparing against a constant and > not doing an assignment when the constant comes before the variable. > > I think to encourage people doing it the less safe way is just silly. It isn't less safe. > Some places in the kernel that already uses the constant first are: It impacts readability. All the aio code was implemented that way for a few years and it drove everyone so batty that we undid it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
