Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing -- an actual analysis of the code!

2002-03-07 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 03:27:49PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > As to the wording, PHK suggested that the wording for this > rule in style(9) be changed: > - - - > get rid of the word boolean, ie: change > Do not use ! for tests unless it is a boolean, e.g. use > to

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing -- an actual analysis of the code!

2002-03-07 Thread Brian T . Schellenberger
On Thursday 07 March 2002 12:59 am, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes: | >Implies??? I thought I was quite explicit: | > | >to prevent is "if (!strcmp(a,b))" which when read is extremely wrong | > of that is actually happening. | > | >! is prono