On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Coleman Kane wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:36 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, [utf-8] Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
Coleman Kane <[email protected]> writes:
- if (sc->ndis_80211 && vap)
+ if ((sc->ndis_80211 != NULL) && (vap != NULL))
sc->ndis_80211 is an int. NULL is a pointer.
Also, the number of style bugs was doubled on (almost?) every changed line
by adding 2 sets of unnecessary parentheses.
Bruce
Re-read style(9) more closely.
Do I need to read it at all :-).
Yes... the extra parentheses are superfluous, and should therefore be
removed. However, the current rev, which looks like this:
if ((sc->ndis_80211 != 0) && (vap != NULL))
doesn't help the author shoot themselves in the foot as violating the
"explicitly compare values to zero" rule did in the earlier revision.
Actually I needed to count the style bugs more carefully -- 2 implicit
comparisons with 0 or NULL (unless the first one is really boolean),
but I only counted 1, while I counted 2 for the extra parentheses.
I'll heed the request of the second-to-last paragraph of style(9) on
this particular change, not churning the SVN repo further, and make a
mental note for later.
Thanks. I forgot about that paragraph being there. I think churning
repos doesn't matter much now if it ever did, but churning sources makes
their history hard to understand.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
