Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751204AbWHTWgy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:36:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751380AbWHTWgy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:36:54 -0400 Received: from mx2.rowland.org ([192.131.102.7]:29968 "HELO mx2.rowland.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751204AbWHTWgy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:36:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:36:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@netrider.rowland.org To: Jan Engelhardt cc: Ingo Molnar , Alexey Dobriyan , Jeff Garzik , Kernel development list , David Woodhouse , Andrew Morton , "Theodore Ts'o" Subject: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 912 Lines: 26 On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> Recently introduced "bool". > > > >I haven't seen the new definition of "bool", but it can't possibly provide > >a strong distinction between integers and booleans. That is, if x is > >declared as an integer rather than as a bool, the compiler won't complain > >about "if (x) ...". > > Only Java will get you this distinction. Not true. It exists in Ruby. :-) > I would be comfortable with a > feature where conditionals (like if() and ?:) enforce a bool showing > up in C/C++, but it's not easy to get into the mainline gcc. I think relying on an agreed-upon convention is the best we can do. Alan Stern - 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/