On 04/16/2009 09:39 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 21:30, Stefan Küng<tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
..
>
> A quick search through the files revealed:
>
> libsvn_ra_serf\locks.c, line 720 (1.6.x branch), function svn_ra_serf__unlock():
> if (force == TRUE&& (!token || token[0] == '\0'))
>
> libsvn_ra_serf\locks.c, line 329(1.6.x branch), function set_lock_headers():
> if (lock_ctx->force == TRUE)
>
I would find it very counter-intuitive to change these to:
if (lock_ctx->force != FALSE) ...
... and to ensure that people are going to remember a rule like this in
the future.
On 04/16/2009 09:38 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
> While I generally agree that for all intents and purposes, false == 0 and
> true is anything else, we do provide the values TRUE and FALSE for use with
> svn_boolean_t and it is not technically a contract violation to expect
> exactly one of those two values to be provided by the caller.
>
Agreed.
Lieven
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1753804
Received on 2009-04-16 21:49:01 CEST