Re: FALSE == 1

[karlheg@bittersweet.inetarena.com (Karl M. Hegbloom)]

>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Holgate <holgate@debian.org> writes:

    Nick> I have just spent couple of hours tracking down a problem with a minor patch
    Nick> I made to the boot-floppies sources. It turns out that I made the assumption
    Nick> that the macro FALSE would be defined as 0, when in fact dbootstrap.h
    Nick> defines it as ((int) 1) and the corresponding TRUE definition as ((int) 0).
    Nick> I have not checked, but could other boot-floppies hackers have also made the
    Nick> same invalid assumption.

 I think this was done deliberately.  It's using shell semantics, not
 C semantics for TRUE and FALSE.

 TRUE is 0 + No error has occured.

 FALSE is != 0 + the number indicates an error code.

 Otherwise, perhaps there has to be an error code global variable?