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

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 -- anactual analysis of the code!

At 2:16 AM -0500 3/7/02, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote: >Maybe your brain has gotten used to it, but to us ordinary >mortals, even us ordinary mortals who've been slogging C >code for time periods that can be measured in decades >(yikes!), it is very tempting to read > > if (!strcmp(a,b,l)) > >as

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

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

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 07:14:49AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Guys, strcmp() has been defined that way for almost 30 years, get > used to it, and don't demand obfuscation of every other if() in > the kernel to try to hide the fact... We are not trying to hide anything. Style(9) says to do

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes : >: Well, that's my question. David's comment implies that it is not >: good to do '!strcmp()', and I was wondering why it is not good... > > if (strcmp()) > >is the problem with > > if (!strcmp()) > >Which one is right? The fi

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message: Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : At 7:49 PM +0100 3/6/02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: : >Garance A Drosihn writes: : > >In one message, : >> At 12:52 AM -0800 3/6/02, David O'Brien wrote: : >>>I don't think it is clar

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

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 pronounced "NOT". When read "if not string compare a with b then do X", >is

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

Try this text instead: In C, there is no boolean type but there are boolean concepts, contexts that express or test yes/no, good/bad, error/success, pointer initialized/not initialized, object created/not created, and so on. Where a conceptually boolean op

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Right, and since the integer is well defined, > if (!strcmp(a, b)) >is perfectly understandable so what is the problem ? If that is ok, then why is p = malloc(sizeof(*p)); if (!p) return ENOMEM; not ok, given

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I had a discussion with Eric Allman about this very thing recently >where he advocated "everything inside if, while, for and so on should >be true booleans". > >Now, IFF the C language had a type called "boolean" that would make >a lot of sense. > >U

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:37:45PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 7:49 PM +0100 3/6/02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >Garance A Drosihn writes: > > >In one message, > >> At 12:52 AM -0800 3/6/02, David O'Brien wrote: > >>>I don't think it is clarifying a rule. I think it is in fact addin

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

At 7:49 PM +0100 3/6/02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >Garance A Drosihn writes: > >In one message, >> At 12:52 AM -0800 3/6/02, David O'Brien wrote: >>>I don't think it is clarifying a rule. I think it is in fact adding >>>a rule. You are extrapolating too much I think. All the rule is >>>try

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message , Garance A Drosihn writes: >In one message, >At 12:52 AM -0800 3/6/02, David O'Brien wrote: >>I don't think it is clarifying a rule. I think it is in fact adding >>a rule. You are extrapolating too much I think. All the rule is >>trying to

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In one message, At 12:52 AM -0800 3/6/02, David O'Brien wrote: >I don't think it is clarifying a rule. I think it is in fact adding >a rule. You are extrapolating too much I think. All the rule is >trying to prevent is "if (!strcmp(a,b))" which when read is extremely >wrong of that is actua

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Ahh, but here you hit one of my pet-peeves. I hate assignments inside > conditionals. I prefer the above written as: It does not matter. Style(9) does not [intentionally] avoid PHK's pet peeves. It documents the style used b

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" cleopede: >I don't think it is clarifying a rule. I think it is in fact adding a >rule. You are extrapolating too much I think. All the rule is trying >to prevent is "if (!strcmp(a,b))" which when read is extremely wrong of >that is actually happe

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > Ahh, but here you hit one of my pet-peeves. I hate assignments inside > conditionals. I prefer the above written as: > Anyway, if you want it spelled out the way I would want it: > > 0. No assignments in if() > > 1. In conditions, pointers should

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: >I'll grant that the change Paul suggested makes it clear - the >programmer knows when the function is returning an int or not. But >it's not clear that it achieves his intent. is > > char *p; > if (p = somerandomfunction(with, args

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:19:31AM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: > > David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > > As the original author of the PR, I'll point out that this chagne does > > *not* add rules. It clarifies the wording of a rule that's already > >

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: >> I'm advocating that the rule focus on readability rather than trying >> to enforce a type which doesn't exist. > >Excellent idea. Can you pr

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:35:52PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : I was giving one. :-) > : style(9) documents the practices of /sys. Thus we should not arbitaryly > : add rules w/o them being backed up in code. > > I believe that sys/pccard, sys/dev/{pccard,pcic,pccbb,cardbus} tends > to foll

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:19:31AM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: > David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Jeremiahs wrote: > > I was giving one. :-) > > style(9) documents the practices of /sys. Thus we should not arbitaryly > > add rules w/o the

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: > I'm advocating that the rule focus on readability rather than trying > to enforce a type which doesn't exist. Excellent idea. Can you provide verbiage and examples? Thanx,

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: >> >David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: >> >> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> Now, IFF the C languag

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: > >David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > >> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > Now, IFF the C language had a type called "boolean" that would make > a lot of s

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Meyer" writes: >David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: >> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> I was giving one. :-) >> style(9) documents the practices of /sys. Thus we should not arbitaryly >> add rules w/o them being back

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > I was giving one. :-) > style(9) documents the practices of /sys. Thus we should not arbitaryly > add rules w/o them being backed up in code. As the original author of the PR, I'll poi

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: : > On 2002-03-05 15:58, David O'Brien wrote: : > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: : > > > > -Don't use '

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-03-05 15:58, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > > -Don't use '!' for tests unless it's a boolean, e.g. use > > > > +For tests, always compare the value to the

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

msg.pgp Description: PGP message

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > -Don't use '!' for tests unless it's a boolean, e.g. use > > +For tests, always compare the value to the appropriate 0 instead of > > +checking it directly, unless the value is a boolean. > > +For pointers, use: > > +.Bd -liter

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On 2002-03-05 12:59, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > > > > Read the man page to try and decide if you should write "if (x)" or > > > if (x != 0). > > > > > > >Fix: > > > > > > Apply the attached page to the style(9) man page. > [...] > > the one t

Re: RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > > Read the man page to try and decide if you should write "if (x)" or > > if (x != 0). > > > > >Fix: > > > > Apply the attached page to the style(9) man page. [...] the one that I stop to think about is: if (!(flags & FLAGSET)) or should t

RFC: style(9) isn't explicit about booleans for testing.

The following is the largest part of the audit trail of PR docs/28555. At the end of the audit trail, Dima Dorfman asked Mike Meyer to seek review and comments from a wider audience than -doc. Since this documentation PR has been open for quit some time now, I'm posting the patch the PR was abou