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 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 happening.
> > >
> > >If we change boolean to integer, then the proposed rule will not
> >>prevent "if (!strcmp(a,b))" , because strcmp() *does* return an
> >>integer value. Or am I missing something here?
> >
> >Right, and since the integer is well defined,
> > if (!strcmp(a, b))
> >is perfectly understandable so what is the problem ?
>
> 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...
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 the opposite of the the logic of the expression does. Which is
"if string compare a with b is equal then do X". ["if (strcmp(a,b) == 0)"]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
