This is a good change as long as we are just relaxing the rule rather than mandating ==. I think ! makes a lot of sense when testing for emptiness:
if (!container.size()) ... if (!count) ... but == should be used for testing things where 0 is just another number, like indexes: if (index == 0) ... antti On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Keith Miller <keith_mil...@apple.com> wrote: > Is there any opposition to relaxing this rule? Speak now or forever hold > your piece! (not really but I would be curious to hear opposition). > > Cheers, > Keith > > On Apr 27, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Carlos Garcia Campos <carlo...@webkit.org> > wrote: > > El jue, 27-04-2017 a las 16:06 -0700, JF Bastien escribió: > > 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. > > > I agree, it's also quite confusing when using strcmp, because !strcmp > means the strings are equal. It's not only more difficult to read, I've > seen patches with wrong strcmp checks because of that. > > > I also think this could be solved by #defining a success a C call positive > result that is 0 (e.g. CCallSuccess), regardless of the choice we make here. > > > > !!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 > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
