Nico, I agree with you completely: non-zero is true, zero false. It's C. But I am starting now to feel like a dinosaur, b/c "Oh, and I'm trying to hang with the cool kids and use bool :)" -- Rusty
It makes me want to start an emo coreboot programmer feed like this one: https://twitter.com/kylor3n?lang=en for those of us who have been using "C as it is spoken" for more than 5 years :-) Seriously, though, I agree with you but ... the world may not :-) ron On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:01 PM Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
