Hi Paul and Bakul, > > Paul wrote: > > > Ralph Corderoy (7): > > > fmttest.c: Avoid `++' with bools, silencing compiler warnings. > > > > i hate that perfectly reasonable, traditional idioms have to be > > avoided for this reason. > > No strong reason to use type bool in the first place. It didn’t show > up till c99.
You're both wrong. :-) It's always been confusing that MH uses `foo++' to process `-foo' because it's not clear from that location whether multiple `-foo' are significant, e.g. they might increase the fooness. By changing foo's definition to a bool it's is very clear that only its truthness matters. Those left as non-bool, once the move to bool is completed, suggest that the non-zero quantity matters. Further, elsewhere there are quite a few eight-bit ints that are happily `++'d without care that this incrementing might happen to stop at the point it has wrapped to zero. IIRC mhparam used to try and exit(3) with the number of missing components. I readily use `++' instead of `+= 1', who wouldn't? But not without considering overflow in both cases. As for C99, POSIX mandates it these days so it's time to upgrade from pcc(1)! -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy -- Nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
