Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Linus Nielsen Feltzing: "Re: New ID3 and recording features"
• Previous message: Björn Stenberg: "Re: Read errors"
• In reply to: Henrik Backe: "Re: Read errors"
• Next in thread: Nix: "Re: Read errors"
• Reply: Nix: "Re: Read errors"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Henrik Backe wrote:
>>I don't see the difference. The if(func()) and the if(0 != func()) are
>>the same thing, and I prefer the first one, because there is less fluff.
>>The only issue is the "polarity" of the return code.
>>
> The only difference between them is that one contains hidden magic.

Magic? Not at all. C is not magic. The if(func()) construct is a de
facto standard in the C language. Look around you, this is how C is
written, like it or not. I prefer C code that is written like that,
because then it looks like any other C code.

If you write it differently, the C programmer has to look twice to see
what the programmer has intended to do, since the construct is not the
usual one. Constructs like if(0 != func()) catches my eye and leads me
to thing "uh uh, this looks fishy, what is he trying to do?".

/Linus

• Next message: Linus Nielsen Feltzing: "Re: New ID3 and recording features"
• Previous message: Björn Stenberg: "Re: Read errors"
• In reply to: Henrik Backe: "Re: Read errors"
• Next in thread: Nix: "Re: Read errors"
• Reply: Nix: "Re: Read errors"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]