Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> -#define STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP { NULL, 0, 0, 0, NULL }
>> +#define STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP { 0 }
>
> This "NODUP" one is a bit of an odd case though. You don't actually
> change it to use designated initializers, as the patch says. Instead you
> change it in a slightly different way. In a sense, you assign the
> literal zero not to strdup_strings, but to the first field, which is a
> pointer, where I would have expected NULL.
>
> I think there's been some recent-ish "we can assign `{ 0 }` even if the
> first field is a pointer, because it's idiomatic and works out fine"
> even if assigning 0 to a pointer looks a bit odd. So it might not be
> wrong as such, but it doesn't match what the commit message claims, and
> I think it would be more clear to use `{ .strdup_strings = 0 }` here:
> We're explicitly interested in *not* duplicating the strings. It's not
> just some default "let's leave everything as zero/NULL".
Well reasoned. I agree that it is not wrong per-se, and the
solution to use designated initializer is indeed in line with the
theme of the topic.
