[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pic anomalies
From: |
Colin Watson |
Subject: |
Re: pic anomalies |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:39:14 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) |
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 06:31:34PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> It's idiomatic in C to write just `foo' to test it against its `zero
> value' whether it's an int, pointer, etc.
This argument holds less well in this case because do_sprintf has
several other comparisons to '\0'; so I'd be inclined to agree with Ingo
that an explicit != '\0' is better at least in this case. I have a
patch in progress that I'll get round to sending, modulo holidays.
I confess a decreasing interest in general code style debates and an
increasing interest in maintaining local code style consistency as I get
older. :-)
--
Colin Watson [address@hidden]
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, (continued)
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, G. Branden Robinson, 2019/12/30
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/12/31
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, Ingo Schwarze, 2019/12/31
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, John Gardner, 2019/12/31
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/12/31
- Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies, Ingo Schwarze, 2019/12/31
- Re: pic anomalies, Ingo Schwarze, 2019/12/30
- Re: pic anomalies, Ralph Corderoy, 2019/12/30
- Re: pic anomalies,
Colin Watson <=
Re: pic anomalies, Doug McIlroy, 2019/12/31