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

On 8/15/18 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 08/15/2018 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Personally, I'd prefer to
>>>> continue avoiding // comments and intermingled declarations of
>>>> variables and code on grounds of style and readability.
>
>>> ... which I agree with.
>
>> A decade or so ago I would have strongly agreed with you. But the
>> language trend seems to be in the other direction. And there is
>> something to be said for declaration near use without having to use an
>> inner block. I'm not advocating that we change policy, however.
>
> FWIW, the issue I've got with what C99 did is that you can narrow the
> *start* of the scope of a local variable easily, but not the *end* of
> its scope, which seems to me to be solving at most half of the problem.
> To solve the whole problem, you end up needing a nested block anyway.
>
> I do dearly miss the ability to easily limit the scope of a loop's
> control variable to just the loop, eg
>
> for (int i = 0; ...) { ... }
>
> But AFAIK that's C++ not C99.

This works in C99 -- and I'm a really big fan.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net