Here's some comments in the other direction: - If there are times we recommend x != 0 instead of !x, it should maybe be based on whether the condition is better expressed as "not zero" or "false". In the numTestsForEqualityComparison, that's clearly a "not zero" check given the naming of the variable. This could be addressed by removing zero/non-zero from the list with true/false and null/non-null instead of making a carve-out based on type.
- Allowing both forms for zero/non-zero comparisons would be unfortunate. We have style guidelines to avoid tiny inconsistencies like this. So if the guideline changes, it should be to *require* == 0 or != 0 for numeric comparisons to 0, not merely allow it. Proliferating both styles would be sad. - If we adopted the new rule, it would be slightly sad that a bunch of old code doesn't follow it. Changing it all at once would be needless churn, but we'll end up with a lot of code in both styles, partly defeating the consistency benefits of having a style guideline at all. This is sort of a general issue with any change to the coding style guidelines. If we change the guideline for a frequently used construct, the benefit has to be really high to account for the fact that we'll have many years of inconsistency. Note that the guidelines are mainly for the benefit of people reading the code, not writing, and inconsistent style may be worse than consistently using a slightly worse form. - The style checker wouldn't be able to check the rule since it's not smart enough to tell if you are doing a null check, a false check or a zero check. (I am not sure if it enforces the current rule.) I don't actually have a strong opinion on the substance of the rule, either version seems fine to me if we were starting from a blank slate. I'm not entirely sure why the rule ended up that way in the first place. But I wanted to note these as things to think about. Regards, Maciej > On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:00 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 >> <mailto: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 <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
