I agree that using ! does not make the code more readable. I almost always find ! subtly harder to read.
Keith > On Apr 27, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Caio Lima <ticaiol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > O also think it's a good notation. It helps a lot the code reading IMO. > > Caio. > Em qui, 27 de abr de 2017 às 20:33, Chris Dumez <cdu...@apple.com > <mailto:cdu...@apple.com>> escreveu: > I also do not like this rule when it comes to integers. > > I personally think JF’s proposal to allow == 0 sounds nice. I don’t think JF > was suggesting rewriting existing code (which would indeed cause a lot of > churn). > > -- > Chris Dumez > > > > > >> On Apr 27, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Geoffrey Garen <gga...@apple.com >> <mailto:gga...@apple.com>> wrote: >> > >> I’ve never really liked this style rule, and I’ve always felt like it snuck >> into the style document without much discussion. >> >> Even so, I usually tolerate it. >> >> Geoff >> >>> On Apr 27, 2017, at 4:06 PM, JF Bastien <jfbast...@apple.com >>> <mailto:jfbast...@apple.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello C++ fans! >>> >>> The C++ style check currently say: >>> Tests for true/false, null/non-null, and zero/non-zero should all be done >>> without equality comparisons >>> >>> I totally agree for booleans and pointers… but not for integers. I know >>> it’s pretty much the same thing, but I it takes me slightly longer to >>> process code like this: >>> >>> int numTestsForEqualityComparison = 0: >>> // Count ‘em! >>> // … >>> if (!numTestsForEqualityComparison) >>> printf(“Good job!”); >>> >>> I read it as “if not number of tests for equality comparison”. That's >>> weird. It takes me every slightly longer to think about, and I’ve gotten it >>> wrong a bunch of times already. I’m not trying to check for “notness", I’m >>> trying to say “if there were zero tests for equality comparison”, a.k.a.: >>> >>> if (numTestsForEqualityComparison == 0) >>> printf(“Good job!”); >>> >>> So how about the C++ style let me just say that? I’m not suggesting we >>> advise using that style for integers everywhere, I’m just saying it should >>> be acceptable to check zero/non-zero using equality comparison. >>> >>> >>> !!Thanks (i.e. many thanks), >>> >>> JF >>> >>> p.s.: With you I am, fans of Yoda comparison, but for another day this will >>> be. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org> >>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org <mailto:webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
