On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:01:30AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2016, Jeff King wrote: > > > I think traditionally we've avoided struct assignment because some > > ancient compilers didn't do it. But it's in C89, and I suspect it's > > crept into the code base anyway over the years without anyone > > complaining. > > I fear that's my fault, at least partially, seeing as merge-recursive.c > even *returns* structs (see 6d297f81; I plan to fix that as part of the > cleaned-up am-3-merge-recursive-direct patch series). Heh, that commit is quite old. If nobody has complained about it, then I think there is nothing to be sorry about. If struct assignment (and returns) work everywhere, and they make the code easier to read, we should be using them. I am on the fence regarding oidcpy/oidclr. I agree they _could_ be struct assignments, but it is also convenient to have concept wrapped up in a function, in case we ever want to do anything more complicated. -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