[webkit-dev] !!Tests for equality comparison

[Antti Koivisto]

This is a good change as long as we are just relaxing the rule rather than
mandating ==. I think ! makes a lot of sense when testing for emptiness:

if (!container.size())
   ...

if (!count)
   ...

but == should be used for testing things where 0 is just another number,
like indexes:

if (index == 0)
   ...


   antti


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Keith Miller <keith_miller at apple.com>
wrote:

> Is there any opposition to relaxing this rule? Speak now or forever hold
> your piece! (not really but I would be curious to hear opposition).
>
> Cheers,
> Keith
>
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Carlos Garcia Campos <carlosgc at webkit.org>
> wrote:
>
> El jue, 27-04-2017 a las 16:06 -0700, JF Bastien escribió:
>
> Hello C++ fans!
>
> The C++ style check currently say:
> Tests for true/false, null/non-null, and zero/non-zero should all be
> done without equality comparisons
>
> I totally agree for booleans and pointers… but not for integers. I
> know it’s pretty much the same thing, but I it takes me slightly
> longer to process code like this:
>
> int numTestsForEqualityComparison = 0:
> // Count ‘em!
> // …
> if (!numTestsForEqualityComparison)
>   printf(“Good job!”);
>
> I read it as “if not number of tests for equality comparison”. That's
> weird. It takes me every slightly longer to think about, and I’ve
> gotten it wrong a bunch of times already. I’m not trying to check for
> “notness", I’m trying to say “if there were zero tests for equality
> comparison”, a.k.a.:
>
> if (numTestsForEqualityComparison == 0)
>   printf(“Good job!”);
>
> So how about the C++ style let me just say that? I’m not suggesting
> we advise using that style for integers everywhere, I’m just saying
> it should be acceptable to check zero/non-zero using equality
> comparison.
>
>
> I agree, it's also quite confusing when using strcmp, because !strcmp
> means the strings are equal. It's not only more difficult to read, I've
> seen patches with wrong strcmp checks because of that.
>
>
> I also think this could be solved by #defining a success a C call positive
> result that is 0 (e.g. CCallSuccess), regardless of the choice we make here.
>
>
>
> !!Thanks (i.e. many thanks),
>
> JF
>
> p.s.: With you I am, fans of Yoda comparison, but for another day
> this will be.
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20170428/f0f63d80/attachment.html>