On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:14:20PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> is better then why stop there? Why not
>
> if (((w & MASK) != FALSE) == TRUE)
Thanks for this, that's the perfect come back to the pedantic folks.
It's also wrong. You couldn't flip it around to write
if (((w & MASK) == TRUE) == TRUE)
because that only works when MASK == 1. So it's dangerous since you can't apply the normal laws of algebra on it because you are comparing BOOLEANS and MASKS, which has always ended in pain...