[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Can you tell us in which situations we have "#define NULL 0"
> > as opposed to "#define NULL (void*)0" ?
> Some C libraries do this for the benefit of broken old programs which
> use NULL when they mean an integer or character0.  C99 says it's legal
> for NULL to be 0.

Fortunately Debian is concerned with the glibc only. And from what I can
read (by others in this thread), using NULL instead of (char*)0 is always
ok except when used to finish a vararg where (char*)NULL would be a simple
compromise between readability and correctness.

> > Don't you feel like that this argument is ridiculous to remove Guillem
> > from the team?
> This and the other things I've complained of.  He won't discuss these
> matters with me.

And I can understand him, you have never shown any willingness to discuss
calmly and to make compromise.

(And your coding style preference sucks and you cry when it evolves in
dpkg because others dare touch your original code)

> > I agree that it's necessarily a good idea to reformat the code but you
> > brought up the subject (in an unpleasant way, as usual) and as AFAIK he
> > didn't push more stylistic changes since then.
> Some commits:
>   d9091a81b6dc449038821451696577ebbd270715  21 Jan   Refactor max open...
>   02680ecbbbf6da2b023891a11b38ecce5346dbbd   9 Jan   Use NULL instead of 0

When you complained, it was about indenting and spaces. Here I see
improvements in readability of the program and a nicer check to decide
between two ways to close all the open file descriptors (without
hardcoding a specific OS in #ifdef).

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: