Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays
Date: 2019-10-19 10:26:08
Message-ID: 20191019102608.qabogrzch347uzpi@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-10-18 09:03:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Chapman Flack (chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net) wrote:
> > On 10/18/19 08:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I realize that I need to don some fireproof gear for suggesting this,
> > > but I really wonder how much fallout we'd have from just allowing {} to
> > > be used.. It's about a billion[1] times cleaner and more sensible than
> > > using {0} and doesn't create a dependency on what the first element of
> > > the struct is..
> >
> > I guess the non-flamey empirical question would be, if it's not ISO C,
> > are we supporting any compiler that doesn't understand it?
>
> Right, that's basically what I was trying to ask. :)

I don't understand why this is an issue worth deviating from the
standard for. Especially not when the person suggesting to do so isn't
even doing the leg work to estimate the portability issues.

I feel we've spent more than enough time on this topic.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2019-10-19 10:36:57 Re: dropdb --force
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-10-19 09:56:56 Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?