Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Hi,

On 2018-08-15 12:01:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > We could just mandate C99, more generally.
> >
> > /me goes and hides in a bush.
>
> It's hard to believe that would cost much.

Yea.

> Personally, I'd prefer to continue avoiding // comments and
> intermingled declarations of variables and code on grounds of style
> and readability.

I don't really care much about either. The calculus for intermingled
declarations would personally change the minute that we decided to allow
some C++ - allowing for scoped locks etc via RAII - but not earlier.

The thing I'd really want is designated initializers for structs. Makes
code for statically allocated structs *so* much more readable. And guess
who's working on code that adds statically allocated structs with lots
of members...

> BTW, I think a bush is probably not a nearly sufficient place to hide.
> The wrath of Tom will find you wherever you may go... :-)

That's why I keep moving. At 200 mph on a train :P. A continent away.

Greetings,

Andres Freund