On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:38 AM, David Seikel onef...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I'm fully aware that far to often I just do if (pointer) or if
(!pointer). I don't see if (!!pointer) as being any more readable
or correct than if (pointer), while grudgingly admitting that if
(NULL != pointer) is
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Lucas De Marchi
lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Enlightenment SVN
no-re...@enlightenment.org wrote:
Log:
Revert coccinelle changes.
Using !! instead of != NULL results in significantly and unacceptably
less readable
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:28 -0300, Lucas De Marchi wrote :
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Enlightenment SVN
no-re...@enlightenment.org wrote:
Log:
Revert coccinelle changes.
Using !! instead of != NULL results in significantly and unacceptably
less readable code, and I refuse to
On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, at 13:32:06 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
I'm going to agree that !! is unreadable. Um, does that mean
negate the negation, hence do nothing, or is their an obscure !!
operator I have somehow missed in my decades of C programming?
Don't think I have ever seen it
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:59:54 -0700 Michael Jennings m...@kainx.org
wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, at 13:32:06 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
I'm going to agree that !! is unreadable. Um, does that mean
negate the negation, hence do nothing, or is their an obscure !!
operator I have
On Tuesday, 24 August 2010, at 14:38:17 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
Um, so it's just a cast to boolean really? Though still it's not the
same thing as checking for equality with NULL. In the case of pointers,
it's the equivalence or lack of equivalence with NULL that is the
important
