| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
| Date: | 2019-10-17 07:30:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20191017073002.GD17439@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:37:11PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> -1 for these macros.
>
> These are basic facts about the C language. I hope C eventually
> supports {} like C++, so that you don't have to think hard about
> whether the first member is another struct, and recursively so … but
> since the macros can't help with that problem, what is the point?
FWIW, I am not convinced that those macros are an improvement either.
> I am reminded of an (apocryphal?) complaint from an old C FAQ about
> people using #define BEGIN {.
This one? Wow.
http://c-faq.com/cpp/slm.html
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-17 07:44:19 | Re: Remove obsolete information schema tables |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-17 07:18:01 | Re: Clean up MinGW def file generation |