On June 9, 2017 10:07:36 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >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?
OK. Richard.
