Subject: Re: a new KNF (and some comments)
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/21/2000 12:07:49
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Simon Burge wrote:
> Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > That should read:
> > if ((error = function(a1, a2)))
> > but I personally prefer:
> > if ((error = function(a1, a2)) != 0)
> > ...for additional clarity.
> Doesn't one of the gcc warnings barf about "testing assignment value" or
> something? I think there are circumstances where you do need the "!= 0"
> bit to keep it happy.
Either one works. Adding the second set of parenthesis makes gcc happy.