On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:44:14PM +0100, Javier Martín wrote: > > > You're welcome. I see that nevertheless the "0 != " comparisons were > substituted for standard C int-to-bool-conversion-based comparisons. > Maybe people should know the signature _and_ semantic contract of > strncmp, but frequently they don't (I had to look it up in the > handbook), and while the code that was committed may look like an > "obvious error" to a wanderer (because, of course, comparison functions > should return a semantic-bool, shouldn't they?), the version with the > explicit "0 != " checks at least looks like it was written like that _on > purpose_ (and the actual binary cost should be zero with any sensible > compiler), thus making future developers on bug-fixing quests at least > scratch their heads before proposing the change to the "if (!strncmp)" > error. So, keeping the coding style consistent is important, but I think > a balance with readability is in order. Thus, you are the maintainers > and you know what you're doing, but I think it's not worth to keep the > coding style so strict as to become confusing.
I think you're confusing things. C has no boolean type. I know strcmp gives more info than just a semantic boolean, but in this case it's not interesting to us. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
