From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: strange case of "if ((a & b))"
In-reply-to: <YJjSQWcx1xno9vyB@paquier.xyz>
References: <20210428182936.GE27406@telsasoft.com>
 <2896014.1619635209@sss.pgh.pa.us> <YJjSQWcx1xno9vyB@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Mon, 10 May 2021 15:27:13 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <577205.1620628321.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 02:32:01 -0400
Message-ID: <577206.1620628321@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/577206.1620628321%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 02:40:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Agreed, but shouldn't we just drop the excess parens rather than
>> doubling down on useless notation?

> Using a notation like ((a & b) != 0) to enforce a boolean check after
> the bitwise operation is the usual notation I've preferred, FWIW.  Do
> you mean something different here?

Yeah --- the "!= 0" is pointless in the context of an if-test.

			regards, tom lane