On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Martin Sebor 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?