On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap >>> it in an inline function. I decided to use "id_strcmp" instead of >>> just overloading strcmp, but I don't feel strongly about that choice. >>> >>> The second patch changes all existing uses of that pattern to use the >>> new function. >>> >>> OK for trunk? >> >> >> Since all the uses are of the form !id_strcmp(), would taking >> a step further and introducing a bool id_equal() be going too >> far? >> >> Besides being (arguably) easier to read, it would get around >> the question of whether it should be !id_strcmp() or >> id_strcmp == 0, or perhaps even 0 == id_strcmp(). > > Makes sense. > > OK for trunk?
Ping?
