| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2019-10-04 18:05:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4f4852b9-0ed5-b84c-03ae-ebc7725219ea@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/4/19 1:44 PM, Ashwin Agrawal wrote:
> macro exist in first place will be hard to remember. So, irrespective
> in long run, {0} might get used in code and hence seems better
> to just use {0} from start itself instead of macro/wrapper on top.
>
> Plus, even if someone starts out with thought {1} sets them all to ones,
> I feel will soon realize by exercising the code isn't the reality.
I wish ISO C had gone the same place gcc (and C++ ?) went, and allowed
the initializer {}, which would eliminate any chance of it misleading
a casual reader.
If that were the case, I would be +1 on just using the {} syntax.
But given that the standard is stuck on requiring a first element,
I am +1 on using the macro, just to avoid giving any wrong impressions,
even fleeting ones.
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-10-04 18:32:51 | Re: tableam vs. TOAST |
| Previous Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-10-04 17:44:13 | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |