Nathan Scott wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:21:13PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>
>
>>From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>Converting:
>>'B_FALSE' into 'false'
>>'B_TRUE' into 'true'
>>'boolean_t' into 'bool'
>>
>>
>
>Hmm, so your bool is better than the next guys bool[ean[_t]]? :)
>
>
Well yes, because it is not "mine". ;)
It is, after all, just a typedef of the C99 _Bool-type.
>Seems like it'll be a few more days until the next cleanup patch
>to remove _that_, so we shouldn't go that path.
>
A generic boolean to an integer? And if Andrew toss that patch, this one
will follow.
So what is wrong with this path?
> Since we do use
>the current boolean_t somewhat inconsistently in XFS, I'd say we
>should just toss the thing and use int.
>
>
If _that_ is the problem, I am happy to help. Did not want to touch more
then the already defined "booleans", because it seemed to scare some people.
After all, what interest me next most to a generic boolean, is using
booleans when it obviously is a boolean.
>I took the earlier patch and completed it, switching over to int
>use in place of boolean_t in the few places it used - I'll merge
>that at some point, when its had enough testing.
>
>
Is that set in stone? Or is there a chance to (in my opinion) improve
the readability, by setting the variables to their real type.
>cheers.
>
>
best regards
|