> Since they were there, they then got used for other things with
> the result that busybox now needs about 1 day worth of work to reverse
> things.
It would appear obvious to me that instead if changing the semantics of
the code to match the "proper" definitions of TRUE and FALSE, yo
> "Erik" == Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Erik> Arguably, I should have fixed up the sash code to use C semantics before
Erik> including it. But then hindsight is 20/20,
No, it's catch-22-22.
--
We should not penalize the conscientious to coddle those who run
On Fri Oct 20, 2000 at 03:05:39PM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Nick" == Nick Holgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Nick> I have just spent couple of hours tracking down a problem with a minor
>patch
> Nick> I made to the boot-floppies sources. It turns out that I made the
>
> "Nick" == Nick Holgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nick> I have just spent couple of hours tracking down a problem with a minor patch
Nick> I made to the boot-floppies sources. It turns out that I made the assumption
Nick> that the macro FALSE would be defined as 0, when in fact
> > Nick Holgate wrote:
> > > +#define FALSE ((int) 1)
> > > +#define TRUE((int) 0)
>
> Why not do :
>
> #define TRUE (0==0)
> #define FALSE (!TRUE)
>
> or something such ?
#define THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING \
(1628 - 11) << 1) + 350) * 6) >> 9)
#define TRU
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 11:18:52AM +0200, Sven wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:53:24PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Nick Holgate wrote:
> > > +#define FALSE ((int) 1)
> > > +#define TRUE((int) 0)
>
> Why not do :
>
> #define TRUE (0==0)
> #define FALSE (!TRUE)
>
> or something su
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:53:24PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Nick Holgate wrote:
> > +#define FALSE ((int) 1)
> > +#define TRUE((int) 0)
Why not do :
#define TRUE (0==0)
#define FALSE (!TRUE)
or something such ?
Friendly,
Sven LUther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:36 PM
To: Santiago Vila
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FALSE == 1
> > +#define FALSE ((int) 1)
> > +#define TRUE((int) 0)
>
> This is contrary to
On Tue Oct 17, 2000 at 02:51:09PM +0100, Nick Holgate wrote:
>
> I have just spent couple of hours tracking down a problem with a minor patch
> I made to the boot-floppies sources. It turns out that I made the assumption
> that the macro FALSE would be defined as 0, when in fact dbootstrap.h
> de
> > +#define FALSE ((int) 1)
> > +#define TRUE((int) 0)
>
> This is contrary to usual logic which says that
>
> if (3>2) {
> whatever
> }
Yes, I'm quite aware this is "contrary to usual logic" that's why I
posted in the first place.
> Why not change the "wrong" definitions of TRUE a
Nick Holgate wrote:
> +#define FALSE ((int) 1)
> +#define TRUE((int) 0)
This is contrary to usual logic which says that
if (3>2) {
whatever
}
and
if (TRUE) {
whatever
}
should be the equivalent things.
Why not change the "wrong" definitions of TRUE and FALSE in whatever place
th
11 matches
Mail list logo
