Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> writes: > On Thu 2019-06-13 08:08:32 -0300, David Bremner wrote: >> - add parens in some ternery operators > > itym "ternary"
yep. > >> @@ -120,13 +120,13 @@ _process_string_arg (const notmuch_opt_desc_t >> *arg_desc, char next, const char * >> static int _opt_set_count (const notmuch_opt_desc_t *opt_desc) >> { >> return >> - !!opt_desc->opt_inherit + >> - !!opt_desc->opt_bool + >> - !!opt_desc->opt_int + >> - !!opt_desc->opt_keyword + >> - !!opt_desc->opt_flags + >> - !!opt_desc->opt_string + >> - !!opt_desc->opt_position; >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_inherit + >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_bool + >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_int + >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_keyword + >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_flags + >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_string + >> + (bool) opt_desc->opt_position; >> } > > i find this is deeply weird. It looks like it is coercing various types > into bools, and then summing a list of bools. > > While the spec might well say that the sum of two bools should be an int > (i haven't checked), it's not at all obvious to me that the infix + > operator should assume that type. (float + float is a float, not an > int, for example) Yes, the C11 standard seems pretty clear here, 6.3.1.{1,2} > > in some sense, the !! operator works better here because i know that its > output is likely to be an int, so summing makes sense. > For whatever reason I never used this idiom much. I _think_ it should be replaced in new code with (bool), but I don't feel strongly about it. There's an argument to be made that we should really just use ternary operators there. I would accept a patch to do that if you feel strongly enough. d _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch