RE: (0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0)
From: Godbole, Amarendra (GE Consumer & Industrial) (Amarendra.Godbole_at_ge.com)
Date: 03/11/04
- Previous message: Xiong, Crystal: "PTS test pass results with glibc-2004-02-15 (CVS pull 3-04-04) on IA64 platform"
- Maybe in reply to: Godbole, Amarendra (GE Consumer & Industrial): "(0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0)"
- Next in thread: Chip Salzenberg: "Re: (0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:34:44 +0530 To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> As a result, using the former just tends to increase peoples
> confusion by making code harder to read, which in turn tends
> to increase the chance of bugs.
Kindly don't insult the kernel developers' with such statements. ;-)
They are smart enough to understand such constructs, which, I
deduce from what someone said earlier in this thread. So no
confusion would prevail here...[take it in a lighter vein folks, I
am kidding.]
> So don't do it. The kind of bug that the "0 == x" syntax
> protects against is LESS LIKELY to happen than the kind of
> bug it tends to cause.
Agreed and understood. Thanks.
Sincere apologies for my previous ``non-text wrapped'' post. This
won't happen henceforth.
Cheers,
Amarendra
-- Picture Perfect Engineering / These opinions are mine. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Xiong, Crystal: "PTS test pass results with glibc-2004-02-15 (CVS pull 3-04-04) on IA64 platform"
- Maybe in reply to: Godbole, Amarendra (GE Consumer & Industrial): "(0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0)"
- Next in thread: Chip Salzenberg: "Re: (0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
