> On Mon(17)/Jan/05 - , Diane Bruce wrote:
>> I'd not attempt to use errno as a boolean, I'd do:
Liam J Foy wrote:
> I disagree. errno is normally used as boolean.
Heh... this is one of those areas where there seem to be two distinct
camps with little grey area. :-) For the record, I'm in the "Thou shalt
not use an integral value as the result in thy boolean test" camp with
Diane here. Zero meaning false, non-zero meaning true is merely a
convention (which is simple to grasp and not as error-prone as many
other conventions, admittedly, but still a convention).
In the end, I think that being an electrical engineer -- where we study
hole flow and active low signals are common -- makes me value the
clarity of an explicit integral test, even if the code compiles the same.
Even so... I'd hope that nobody starts wasting time by submitting
patches for this (one way or the other).
Dave