Am 10.07.2017 um 22:38 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
It's a pity, though, that you do not suggest something even more
useful, such as C++14.
I cannot tell if this part is tongue-in-cheek (especially the "++"),
so I will ignore it to avoid wasting time.
Actually, I'm serious.
Subject: [PATCH] strbuf: use designated initializers in STRBUF_INIT
-#define STRBUF_INIT { 0, 0, strbuf_slopbuf }
+#define STRBUF_INIT { .alloc = 0, .len = 0, .buf = strbuf_slopbuf }
While this may serve as a test balloon, changing STRBUF_INIT, or any
of those _INIT macros, is actually the least interesting. The
interesting instances are initializations for which we do *not* have a
macro.
I am not sure what negative impact you think the macro-ness would
have to the validity of the result from this test balloon. An old
compiler that does not understand designated initializer syntax
would fail to compile both the same way, no?
struct strbuf buf0 = STRBUF_INIT;
struct strbuf buf1 = { .alloc = 0, .len = 0, .buf = strbuf_slopbuf };
I said it is uninteresting, not that there is a negative impact. There
is simply nothing gained for strbuf users: They would use STRBUF_INIT
before and after the change and would not benefit from designated
initializers.
This change may serve well as a test balloon, but not as an example of
the sort of changes that we would want to see later (of the kind "change
FOO_INIT macro to use designated initializers"; they are just code churn).
-- Hannes
