James Carlson wrote: >Garrett D'Amore writes: > > >>I'm not sure if the Style Guide makes that difference. I don't know. >>Frankly, this is one of my least favorite rules in the guide, because I >>happen to think "if (!foo)" is clearer than "if (foo != 0)". But I >>didn't write the guide, or get to vote on it -- but I do assume that I'm >>bound to follow it. >> >>If I've misinterpreted what it says, I'd be happy to be corrected, >>because to *my* eyes, I agree with Peter. >> >> > >I think there's general agreement that treating a bitwise flag test as >a boolean results in nicely readable code, and should be encouraged. >In fact, I'd go so far as to say that comparing those expressions >against zero needs to be outlawed. "== 0" is very hard to read as >"not set," while "!= 0" has a hint of not-i-ness about it. > >
My take on it is if you do: if ((foo & X) == 0) Then it is much less likely for the you to mistakingly do (and for the compiler to accept): if ((foo && X) == 0) vs if (foo && X) So while if (foo & X) may work and be ok, it's not what I call "good defensive programming." Darren _______________________________________________ driver-discuss mailing list driver-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
