On 04.02.2016 22:25, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote: > 2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth <[email protected]>: >> I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE > We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now. > Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring local > copies, and that's what I'd like to avoid. I don't like true/false definitions neither. If we have contributions which bring them, well, we should factor it out during review.
Arguments against true/false definitions? It's C! As we know, in C, everything but 0 is naturally true. While redefining true/false seems to enhance readability, it breaks with this principle. That might not be a problem if you write new code---you usually know how you want to interpret true then. However if you just read code you might find a condition like if (something == true) So, I expect that this comparison is done in terms of the type of `something` (and is only "true" if `something` evaluates to 1). Is it like that? Well, I'm pretty sure it is. But having to think about it is already too much IMO. Nico -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
