On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 08:30 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> I got tired of writing strcmp (IDENTIFIER_POINTER and decided to wrap
>> it in an inline function.  I decided to use "id_strcmp" instead of
>> just overloading strcmp, but I don't feel strongly about that choice.
>>
>> The second patch changes all existing uses of that pattern to use the
>> new function.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>
>
> Since all the uses are of the form !id_strcmp(), would taking
> a step further and introducing a bool id_equal() be going too
> far?
>
> Besides being (arguably) easier to read, it would get around
> the question of whether it should be !id_strcmp() or
> id_strcmp == 0, or perhaps even 0 == id_strcmp().

Makes sense.

OK for trunk?