Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays
Date
Msg-id 20191019102608.qabogrzch347uzpi@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers fornulls/values arrays  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2019-10-18 09:03:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Chapman Flack (chap@anastigmatix.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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: dropdb --force