On 27 October 2016 at 12:46, Markus Teich <markus.te...@stusta.mhn.de> wrote: > Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> To me ! is logical NOT and your suggestion relies on the fact that >> XUrgencyHint is a single bit flag? no? >> >> I prefer the original code, as it doesn't use side effects of logical NOTs. > > The `(wmh->flags & XUrgencyHint)` is used as a bool value regardless. > Basically > `test_exp ? 1 : 0` seemed stupid to me. The double negation achieves the same > thing as having the `? 1 : 0` (normalizing the output). However your argument > with using the side effects of ! are valid, so leave it as it is.
Exactly, I prefer the original version. Cheers, Anselm
