[coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

ron minnich rminnich at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 23:22:10 CET 2016

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:
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 :-)


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:01 PM Nico Huber <nico.h at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20160204/659be3f8/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list