On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 06:03:28PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> > Ideally we could say:
> >
> > show_date(t, tz, &{ DATE_NORMAL });
> >
> > but of course C does not allow that.
>
> Yes it does, e.g. in 6.5.2.5 of C11, example 3 shows:
Well, yes. But we generally restrict ourselves to C89 here, so we are
not even close.
> Of course, whether all of the compilers we target support it is a
> different question. If they do, perhaps something like:
>
> #define SIMPLE_DATE(f) &(struct date_mode) { DATE_NORMAL }
>
> would allow the callers to remain reasonably sane.
My patch already introduces DATE_MODE, so you could conditionally hide
it there, and fall back to date_mode_from_type when the compiler is too
old for this. But then, what is the advantage over the existing
solution? It's reentrant, but I don't think that is a problem here.
And in patch 3, you'll see that I add an extra assertion to
date_mode_from_type that this cannot support (to make sure that we do
not create a DATE_STRFTIME mode with no matching format string). The
syntax above would at least give us NULL for the string, which is better
than random garbage, but I think the assert is better still.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html