On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:41:25PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:02:32 +0200 > Anselm R Garbe <[email protected]> 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. > > this is exactly what was checked with the ternary operator. The > bitmask-result is also "so to say" casted to a boolean value, and > !! is inverse-idempotent on booleans, which means that we are save > here. I prefer Markus' approach, but it's your decision as a maintainer. >
FWIW: I disagree. The ternary form is slightly longer but more readable. -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
