On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:02:32 +0200
Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Anselm,
> To me ! is logical NOT and your suggestion relies on the fact that
> XUrgencyHint is a single bit flag? no?
> I prefer the original code, as it doesn't use side effects of logical
> NOTs.
this is exactly what was checked with the ternary operator. The
bitmask-result is also "so to say" casted to a boolean value, and
!! is inverse-idempotent on booleans, which means that we are save
here. I prefer Markus' approach, but it's your decision as a maintainer.
Cheers
Laslo
--
Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Thu Oct 27 2016 - 12:41:25 CEST