On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Enlightenment SVN
wrote:
> Log:
> Revert coccinelle changes.
>
> Using !! instead of != NULL results in significantly and unacceptably
> less readable code, and I refuse to accept those changes.
> Unfortunately, since they were all done at once, I have to rever
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Lucas De Marchi
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Enlightenment SVN
> wrote:
>> Log:
>> Revert coccinelle changes.
>>
>> Using !! instead of != NULL results in significantly and unacceptably
>> less readable code, and I refuse to accept those changes.
>
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:28 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote :
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Enlightenment SVN
> wrote:
> > Log:
> > Revert coccinelle changes.
> >
> > Using !! instead of != NULL results in significantly and unacceptably
> > less readable code, and I refuse to accept those chang
On Monday, 23 August 2010, at 15:36:36 (-0300),
Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> Ahn... you are talking about the other changes. I can disable those
> and apply for you if you want. But it's well
> automated/understandable by SCRIPTS/coccinelle/spatchall.sh, if you
> want to apply by yourself.
I am very
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:46:39 +0200 Albin Tonnerre
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:28 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote :
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Enlightenment SVN
> > wrote:
> > > Log:
> > > Revert coccinelle changes.
> > >
> > > Using !! instead of != NULL results in significantly and
On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, at 13:32:06 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
> I'm going to agree that !! is unreadable. Um, does that mean
> negate the negation, hence do nothing, or is their an obscure !!
> operator I have somehow missed in my decades of C programming?
>
> Don't think I have ever seen
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:59:54 -0700 Michael Jennings
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, at 13:32:06 (+1000),
> David Seikel wrote:
>
> > I'm going to agree that !! is unreadable. Um, does that mean
> > negate the negation, hence do nothing, or is their an obscure !!
> > operator I have somehow
On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, at 14:38:17 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
> Um, so it's just a cast to boolean really? Though still it's not the
> same thing as checking for equality with NULL. In the case of pointers,
> it's the equivalence or lack of equivalence with NULL that is the
> important th
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:38 AM, David Seikel wrote:
> Yes, I'm fully aware that far to often I just do "if (pointer)" or "if
> (!pointer)". I don't see "if (!!pointer)" as being any more readable
> or correct than "if (pointer)", while grudgingly admitting that "if
> (NULL != pointer)" is likely
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Monday, 23 August 2010, at 15:36:36 (-0300),
> Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>
>> Ahn... you are talking about the other changes. I can disable those
>> and apply for you if you want. But it's well
>> automated/understandable by SCRIPTS/coccin
10 matches
Mail list logo
