From: Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100
> David Miller wrote: > > But this time I'll just let you know up front that I > > don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear > > improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and > > the other changes are just whitespace changes. > > > Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you > use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential > bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'... > What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some) > 'int')? When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether we "found" something? That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits. In new code, fine, use booleans if you want. I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for arguments to functions that are global in scope. But not for function local variables in cases like this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
