Re: [PATCH] Use ^=1 to toggle between 0 and 1

From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2023, 16:18 UTC
Message-ID: <ff4a6abc-8abf-4dbf-a787-e4895a78b048@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo7erl7er.fsf@gitster.g>

Hi Junio

On 15/12/2023 17:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Even if it unlikely that we would directly compare a boolean variable
>> to "true" or "false" it is certainly conceivable that we'd compare two
>> boolean variables directly. For the integer fallback to be safe we'd
>> need to write
>>
>> 	if (!cond_a == !cond_b)
>>
>> rather than
>>
>> 	if (cond_a == cond_b)
> 
> Eek, it defeats the benefit of using true Boolean type if we had to
> train ourselves to write the former, doesn't it?

Yes, it's horrible - if for some reason it turns out that we cannot use "#include <stdbool.h>" everywhere I think we should drop it rather than providing a subtly incompatible fallback

Show 25 quoted lines

>> A weather-balloon seems like the safest route forward. We have been
>> requiring C99 for two years now [1], hopefully there aren't any
>> compilers out that claim to support C99 but don't provide
>> "<stdbool.h>" (I did check online and the compiler on NonStop does
>> support _Bool).
>>
>> Best Wishes
>>
>> Phillip
>>
>> [1] 7bc341e21b (git-compat-util: add a test balloon for C99 support,
>> 2021-12-01)
> 
> Nice to be reminded of this one.
> 
> The cited commit does not start to use any specific feature from
> C99, other than that we now require that the compiler claims C99
> conformance by __STDC_VERSION__ set appropriately.  The commit log
> message says C99 "provides a variety of useful features, including
> ..., many of which we already use.", which implies that our wish was
> to officially allow any and all features in C99 to be used in our
> codebase after a successful flight of this test balloon.
> 
> Now, I think we saw a successful flight of this test balloon by now.
> Is allowing all the C99 the next step we really want to take?

Show 7 quoted lines

> I still personally have an aversion against decl-after-statement and
> //-comments, not due to portability reasons at all, but because I
> find that the code is easier to read without it. But in principle,
> it is powerful to be able to say "OK, as long as the feature is in
> C99 you can use it", instead of having to decide on individual
> features, and I am not fundamentally against going that route if it
> is where people want to go.

I'm not sure we necessarily want to say "use anything that is in C99" for several reasons.

  - Some features such as C99's variable length arrays are known to be
    problematic.

  - As you say above there maybe features that we think harm the
    readability of our code.

  - As René points out not all compilers necessarily support all
    features.

I think using _Bool could be useful for the reasons Peff outlined. As for other features I've written code that I think would have benefited from compound literals, but off the top of my head I can't think of any other C99 features that I personally wish we were using. I think that decl-after-statement is occasionally useful to declare a variable near where it is used in a long function body but it is much simpler just to ban it altogether and encourage people to break up long functions to make them more readable.

Best Wishes

Phillip

> Thanks.
> 
>