Nico, I agree with you completely: non-zero is true, zero false. It's C. But I am starting now to feel like a dinosaur, b/c

"Oh, and I'm trying to hang with the cool kids and use bool :)" -- Rusty

It makes me want to start an emo coreboot programmer feed like this one: https://twitter.com/kylor3n?lang=en

for those of us who have been using "C as it is spoken" for more than 5 years :-)

Seriously, though, I agree with you but ... the world may not :-)

ron

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:01 PM Nico Huber <nico.h@gmx.de> wrote:

On 04.02.2016 22:25, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
> 2016-02-04 22:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Roth <gaumless@gmail.com>:
>> I don't think we need redefinitions of TRUE/FALSE
> We have no canonical definitions for TRUE/FALSE right now.
> Contributions that use them (for whatever reason) tend to bring local
> copies, and that's what I'd like to avoid.
I don't like true/false definitions neither. If we have contributions
which bring them, well, we should factor it out during review.

Arguments against true/false definitions? It's C! As we know, in C,
everything but 0 is naturally true. While redefining true/false seems
to enhance readability, it breaks with this principle. That might not
be a problem if you write new code---you usually know how you want to
interpret true then. However if you just read code you might find a
condition like
if (something == true)
So, I expect that this comparison is done in terms of the type of
`something` (and is only "true" if `something` evaluates to 1). Is it
like that? Well, I'm pretty sure it is. But having to think about it
is already too much IMO.

Nico