Am 14.07.19 um 02:51 schrieb Jeff King:
> I wonder if we could come up with a definition of INIT_ZERO such that:
>
> struct foo bar = { INIT_ZERO };
>
> worked everywhere. IMHO that is more readable than "{}" anyway.
Not when = {} becomes a well-established way to express
zero-initialization. At that point, your suggested macro would obfuscate
the construct.
> But it does seem a real shame there is no way to say "zero-initialize
> this struct" in C without providing at least a single member value.
Indeed. For this reason, I'm arguing for the second-best form that
places a 0 between the braces.
> Ordering struct definitions to put an arithmetic type at the start is an
> OK workaround (to just let "0" work everywhere).
Why would you re-order members? There's nothing wrong when a pointer is
initialized by 0.
> But it does fall down
> when the first element _has_ to be a struct (like, say, any user of our
> hashmap.[ch] interface).
No, it does not. It is not necessary to spell out nested structs in the
initializer.
-- Hannes
