[pacman-dev] [PATCH 4/5] Versioned provisions

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Mon Nov 19 13:34:42 EST 2007

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 12:13:14PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 8:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > == 0 is much clearer, so I'm going to change this back if I pull the
> > patch. Let's not take shortcuts in C just because they work- lets make
> > the code readable for everyone. It will all get compiled the same way
> > anyway. As a general rule, I always want to see an == or != used with
> > strcmp- it is just easier to digest.
> This is also in the pacman coding guidelines somewhere, for the record.

Thank you for bringing this up again, I already forgot.
That's exactly what I wanted to say : if patches are going to be rejected for
a code style reason, then all these reasons should be written somewhere.
I don't see what other places to look at, all other coding guidelines are in
HACKING, and I can't find any mention of strcmp.

Also, this rule only applies to strcmp? Because it returns 0 in case of
And I just grepped the source for strcmp, it seems like it isn't used with ==
or != in the majority of the cases. Even though there are also many cases
where it is.

Note that I don't have any problem with coding guidelines, as long as they
are clear and written.
I'm all for a consistent style.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list