This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin source question
- From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna at efn dot org>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:23:45 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: cygwin source question
- References: <loom.20070122T085309firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> Dave Korn writes:
> > On 21 January 2007 14:38, Christopher Layne wrote:
> > > I notice in some places, there are double-negates, like:
> > >
> > > me->read_ready |= ret || !!(events & (FD_READ | FD_ACCEPT | FD_CLOSE));
> > >
> > > What's the rationale for these? To enforce either a 0 or 1, to be
> > > directly in line with boolean, rather than a zero or non-zero
> > > result?
> > It's a standard C idiom for that, yeh, it normalizes zero/non-zero
> > into 0/1.
> Also protects against accidentally truncating true values to false (e.g.
> if events is an int and events |(FD_READ...) is 0x80000000 and
> me->read_ready is a short, the implicit cast to short in the assignment
> turns 0x80000000 into 0).
> This is also a Perl idiom (though Perl doesn't suffer the above
> Some people prefer (expr) ? 1 : 0, which looks a lot worse to me than
It seems that (expr) != 0 should do the same (and is a bit more readable
than the ternary ?: operator).
|\ _,,,---,,_ email@example.com | firstname.lastname@example.org
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Freedom is just another word for "nothing left to lose"... -- Janis Joplin
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html