From dev-return-20082-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Sun May 11 21:05:34 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85982 invoked from network); 11 May 2008 21:05:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2008 21:05:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 50487 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2008 21:05:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 50436 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2008 21:05:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 50425 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2008 21:05:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 May 2008 14:05:34 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.17] (HELO smtpout09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.17) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 11 May 2008 21:04:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 595 invoked from network); 11 May 2008 21:05:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (71.239.140.137) by smtpout09-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.17) with ESMTP; 11 May 2008 21:05:02 -0000 Message-ID: <48275F7D.4040002@rowe-clan.net> Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 16:05:01 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucian Adrian Grijincu CC: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r655138 - /apr/apr/trunk/poll/unix/select.c References: <20080510185229.1A06923889C4@eris.apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:52 PM, wrote: >> } >> - if ((*num) = j) >> + if (((*num) = j) != 0) > wouldn't just another set of parentheses fix it? > if (((*num) = j)) Actually, ((*num = j)) is legit, or ((*num = j) != 0) for clarity. The (*num) parens are redundant in any C code I've ever seen :-)