Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 34157 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2001 04:15:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 34130 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2001 04:15:20 -0000 Errors-To: Message-ID: <031c01c0fad1$a46e3a10$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net> Reply-To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: References: <20010621082241.D19356@ebuilt.com> <20010621091112.B5701@ebuilt.com> <3B3277B1.B94693ED@algroup.co.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add back -X functionality Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:12:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Ben Laurie" Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:39 PM > Aaron Bannert wrote: > > p.s. why would "!!" fix bugs on some platforms if ap_exists_config_define > > can only return 0 or 1? I can only see using !! to normalize some non-bool > > return to 0/1 for some weird logic, and even then it's not readable. > > As I was responsible for !!, I guess I should explain. The original > version was flag=!!getenv("SOMETHING"). > > I agree it isn't totally readable, and asked permission before including > it. True, flag = (getenv("SOMETHING") != NULL) is much clearer.