On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 09:47 -0700, Brian Pomerantz wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:11:11PM -0400, Karl MacMillan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 11:48 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> > > Karl MacMillan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 10:45 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Karl MacMillan wrote:
> <snip>
> > > >> is it really necessary to use a char here? granted its smaller but it
> > > >> also doesn't really convey to someone new to the code what is going on.
> > > >> Perhaps a bool typemap? or short int?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Char isn't necessary, though I think it is a common idiom to use char as
> > > > boolean in C programs. What do you mean by typemap (typedef?). I don't
> > > > really think that short int is any better.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > oops, I meant typedef.
> > >
> >
> > I've worked on codebases with and without boolean typedefs and
> > personally prefer to not have a typedef. Any other opinions?
> >
>
> Using the standard *nix form of returning int is always safe and
> consistent.
>

I actually prefer returning char instead - to me that is a common way to indicate that the returned value has a limited range of values (2 in this case). But maybe that is just the code bases I've worked on. I don't care either way - this seems like a bike shed discussion . . .

Karl

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.