Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Code review requested |
| Date | 2012-09-20 18:48 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <505B9D45.1040505@verizon.net> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <ac18hdFivfbU2@mid.individual.net> <dfaf663b-6b33-47fa-81c8-02948badcd27@googlegroups.com> <fd4f5b6a-e495-4de6-b886-9351a5e99514@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <505B8618.7020003@verizon.net> <c4939e6f-e921-49a3-bdb3-576460e6eb1f@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
On 09/20/2012 05:52 PM, ImpalerCore wrote: > On Sep 20, 5:09 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: ... >> It's not just integer types you need to worry about, (bool)0.5 and >> (bool)&object won't work properly, either. > > I have not experienced code that did those type conversions, so I > didn't document it at the time. Have you happened to experience > either of those type conversions in the wild? My project is still governed by a 1997 agreement with our client which requires us to write code which "conforms" to C90 plus the two Technical Corrigenda. Technically, that's not exactly a restrictive requirement - "War and Peace" qualifies as conforming C code - but I try to follow the spirit of the requirement, even if it was incorrectly worded. I long ago adopted a policy of avoiding defining variables whose sole job is to keep track of whether or not a condition is true; I prefer re-stating the condition - it often leads to clearer code, and generally does the right thing when the condition involves variables whose values have changed since the last time it was evaluated. If the condition does not actually need to be re-evaluated, most modern compilers can be counted on to detect that fact (more reliably than I can), and use an unnamed temporary for the same purpose that a named boolean variable would have been used for. Therefore, I think this is a feature I won't make much use of, even when I can do so. However, if I ever do use _Bool, implicit conversions from pointer values to _Bool stand a very good chance of being involved. I often write if(p) rather than if(p!=NULL), which is essentially the same idea.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Code review requested bart.vandewoestyne@gmail.com - 2012-09-20 02:27 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-20 11:44 +0100
Re: Code review requested Bart Vandewoestyne <bart.vandewoestyne@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 08:30 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-20 16:48 +0100
Re: Code review requested Bart Vandewoestyne <bart.vandewoestyne@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 13:38 -0700
Re: Code review requested Bart Vandewoestyne <MyFirstName.MyLastName@telenet.be> - 2012-09-20 23:00 +0200
Re: Code review requested ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Code review requested Bart Vandewoestyne <MyFirstName.MyLastName@telenet.be> - 2012-09-20 23:13 +0200
Re: Code review requested Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-09-22 22:16 +0000
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-20 16:54 -0700
Re: Code review requested ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-23 12:47 +0200
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-23 03:54 -0700
Re: Code review requested "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-23 14:07 +0100
Re: Code review requested Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-23 15:13 -0700
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-23 15:39 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-24 10:46 +1200
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-23 17:30 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-24 14:05 +1200
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-24 00:26 -0700
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 11:03 +0200
Re: Code review requested Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 18:25 +0200
Re: Code review requested Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-25 04:49 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-25 07:41 +1200
Re: Code review requested James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-24 15:50 -0400
Re: Code review requested Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-25 09:30 +1200
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-24 12:45 -0700
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-24 16:10 -0700
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-25 09:02 +0200
Re: Code review requested "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-24 10:47 +0100
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 13:41 +0200
Re: Code review requested "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-24 13:40 +0100
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 15:31 +0200
Re: Code review requested Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-24 15:14 +0100
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 17:40 +0200
Re: Code review requested Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-24 18:11 +0100
Re: Code review requested Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-24 11:13 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-24 20:52 +0100
Re: Code review requested "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-24 16:22 +0100
Re: Code review requested Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-24 16:46 +0100
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 18:22 +0200
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-24 12:52 -0700
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-24 13:59 -0700
Re: Code review requested David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-24 08:43 +0200
Re: Code review requested Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-23 16:03 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-24 11:10 +1200
Re: Code review requested Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-24 00:49 -0700
Re: Code review requested Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-21 07:19 +1200
Re: Code review requested Bart Vandewoestyne <bart.vandewoestyne@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 13:29 -0700
Re: Code review requested ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 13:48 -0700
Re: Code review requested James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-20 17:09 -0400
Re: Code review requested ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 14:52 -0700
Re: Code review requested James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: Code review requested Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 09:53 +0200
Re: Code review requested Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-10-01 07:43 -0400
Re: Code review requested ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 08:55 -0700
Re: Code review requested Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-09-20 16:59 -0400
Re: Code review requested hormelfree@gmail.com - 2012-09-20 17:39 -0700
Re: Code review requested Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 23:23 +0100
Re: Code review requested Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-20 16:48 -0700
csiph-web